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, to the sages, if one has a tree near to field of his neighbor, the distance needed to remove the tree away is 25 cubits, not 16. And the distance is four cubits in a case when he comes to plant a tree next to the field of his neighbor cases according to the sages. 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, no matter how close it is. (The Rambam says when there are trees in the field of his neighbour the law is the tree must be kept four cubits away. Even R Jose agrees with this because it is considered to be causing immediate damage if it is any closes) 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 fruits because he does not get any land with the tree. But for three trees, he gets land. And even though he gets only the trees, it is as if he acquired land." Does he own the land around the three trees or not? I would like to suggest that with no stipulations, he does acquire the land around them as R Yochanan 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. But even so, the Rambam is pointing out the fact that the buyer of the trees can use the land, so 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. (In the case when he acquires one tree, and there is a specific stipulation that he acquires land along with it, then he brings first fruits from the tree.) Also, I might mention that to the Rambam, even if there is a pit containing water or whatever in the filed of his neighbor, he does not have to move the tree away from the border. The only time there is such a requirement to move the tree away is when there are other trees on the neighbor’s property. Then the distance required is four cubits____________________________________________________Also concerning the subject in בבא בתרא page כ''ו ע''ב, I wanted to add that עולא said if one has a tree in ט''ז 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, to the חכמים, if one has a tree near to field of his neighbour, the distance needed to remove the tree away is 25 cubits, not 16. And the distance is four cubits in a case when he comes to plant a tree next to the field of his neighbour cases according to the חכמים. 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. (The רמב’’ם says when there are trees in the field of his neighbour the law is the tree must be kept four cubits away. Even ר’ יוסי agrees with this because it is considered to be causing immediate damage if it is any closes) Also, the question from page 81 (בבא בתרא) where ר' יוחנןsays 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 fruits because he does not get any land with the tree. But for three trees, he gets land. And even though he gets only the trees, it is as if he acquired land." Does he own the land around the three trees or not? I would like to suggest that with no stipulations, he does acquire 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. But even so, the רמב’’ם is pointing out the fact that the buyer of the trees can use the land, so 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. (In the case when he acquires one tree, and there is a specific stipulation that he acquires land along with it, then he brings first fruits from the tree.) Also, I might mention that to the רמב’’ם, even if there is a pit containing water or whatever in the field of his neighbor, he does not have to move the tree away from the border. The only time there is such a requirement to move the tree away is when there are other trees on the neighbor’s property. Then the distance required is four cubits Also, I would like to answer this question on the רמב''ם. He writes if one has a tree next to the border of his neighbor, he brings first fruit from it even though he has to move it away. Why does he have to move it away? The רמב''ם wrote even though there is a נור in the field of his neighbor, he does not have to move the tree. Answer the רמב''ם means this as a bifurcation. If there are trees in the field of his neighbor, he has to move his tree. But in all other circumstances, he does not