Bava Batra page 26b

Also concerning the subject in Bava Batra page 26b, I wanted to add that Ula said if one has a tree in 16 cubits near his neighbour’s field, he cannot bring first fruit from that tree because he is a robber. I wanted to ask why is he a robber? To the Sages on in this same chapter two of Bava Batra, he causes damage. That is not the same thing as robbing. Also, the distance needed to the sages is 25 cubits, not 16. This is besides the fact that the law is like R Jose that he does not have to take the tree away from the border not matter how close it is. Also, the question from page 81 (Bava Batra) where R. Yochanan says one who buys three trees owns the land they are on up to four cubits around them. I want to add here that the Rambam says this law in a way that has caused confusion about what he means. The Rambam wrote (laws of first fruit chapter 2 law 13) one who buys a tree in the field of his neighbour, does not bring first fruit because he does not get any land with the tree. for three trees he gets land. And even though he gets only the trees it is as if he acquired. does he own the land around the three threes or not? I would like to suggest that’ stam (with no stipulations) he does own the land around them as R Yochana said on page 81. But here in the last part of the statement of the Rambam i think he means that the owner of the land made a special condition that the buyer of the trees acquires zero land. However, the Rambam is pointing out the fact that the buyer of the trees can use the land it is a case of acquiring the use of property is as if he acquired the property itself and so he does bring first fruit even in that circumstance.-----------------------------------Also concerning the subject in בבא בתרא page 26b, I wanted to add that עולא said if one has a tree in 16 cubits near his neighbour’s field, he cannot bring first fruit from that tree because he is a robber. I wanted to ask why is he a robber? To the חכמים on in this same chapter two of בבא בתרא, he causes damage. That is not the same thing as robbing. Also, the distance needed to the sages is 25 cubits, not 16. This is besides the fact that the law is like ר יוסי that he does not have to take the tree away from the border, no matter how close it is. Also, the question from page 81 (בבא בתרא) where ר’ יוחנן says one who buys three trees, owns the land they are on up to four cubits around them. I want to add here that the רמב’’ם says this law in a way that has caused confusion about what he means. The רמב’’ם wrote (laws of first fruit chapter 2 law 13) one who buys a tree in the field of his neighbour, does not bring first fruit because he does not get any land with the tree. HOWEVER, for three trees, he gets land. And even though he gets only the trees, it is as if he acquired the land around them. Does he own the land around the three threes or not? I would like to suggest that’ stam (with no stipulations) he does own the land around them as ר’ יוחנן said on page 81. But here in the last part of the statement of the רמב’’ם i think he means that the owner of the land made a special condition that the buyer of the trees acquires zero land. However, the רמב’’ם is pointing out the fact that the buyer of the trees can use the land it is a case of acquiring the use of property is as if he acquired the property itself, קנין פירות ,כקנין הגוף דמי and so he does bring first fruit even in that circumstance.