involving the sale of trees in a village of shepherds, and they came before Rav Yehuda, and he said to the seller: Go and give to the one who bought the trees sufficient land for an ox and its vessels. But I did not know how much was sufficient land for an ox and its vessels. When I heard that which we learned in a mishna (26a), I came to a conclusion with regard to this case. The mishna teaches as follows: A person may not plant a tree close by the field of another, unless he places it at a distance of four cubits from the other field.

Rav Yosef continues: And it is taught in a baraita with regard to this mishna: The four cubits that the Sages stated are for the work of the vineyard, so that he does not take oxen and a plow into his neighbor’s field while tending to his vineyard. I studied this mishna and baraita and said: Learn from it that the phrase: Sufficient for the ox and its vessels, means four cubits. At this stage, the Gemara has demonstrated that Rav Naḥman’s opinion is supported by a mishna, whereas Rav Yosef’s ruling is supported by the incident involving Rav Yehuda.

The Gemara asks: But didn’t we also learn a ruling in a mishna (Kilayim 4:9) in accordance with the opinion of Rav Yosef? That mishna teaches: Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Shimon say: In a case of one who plants his vineyard eight cubits by eight cubits, i.e., he leaves eight cubits between each row of vines, it is permitted for him to bring seeds to the empty spaces between the rows. This ruling can be cited in support of the opinion of Rav Yosef that if there is a space of eight cubits between trees or vines they are not considered one unit. Why, then, is this mishna not brought as proof?

The Gemara answers: Even so, it is preferable to cite the incident in Tzalmon as proof. Whenever possible, it is preferable to provide support for an opinion by means of a practical ruling, as it demonstrates that the Sages took action in accordance with that opinion and did not merely teach it as halakha in theory.

The Gemara comments: Granted, according to the analysis of Rav Yosef stated in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, we hear about the maximum distance that the trees can be scattered, and we hear about the minimum distance that they can be planted close together. The distance that the trees can be scattered is that which we said, i.e., eight cubits. The minimum distance that they can be planted close together is as we learned in a mishna (Kilayim 5:2): A vineyard that is planted in consecutive rows with less than four cubits between the rows is not classified as a vineyard, because the rows are planted too close together. This is the statement of Rabbi Shimon. And the Rabbis say: It is considered a vineyard, and one views the middle vines as if they are not there, as they are slated to be uprooted.

But according to the analysis of Rav Naḥman stated in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, we hear the maximum distance that the trees can be scattered, i.e., sixteen cubits, as in the incident in Tzalmon. Concerning the minimum distance that they can be planted close together, did we hear this distance? The Gemara answers: This is based on logical reasoning; from the fact that according to Rabbi Shimon the minimum distance is half of the maximum distance, according to the Rabbis as well, the minimum distance is half of the maximum, i.e., eight cubits.

Rava says: The halakha is that one who buys three trees acquires the land if the distance between the trees is anywhere from four cubits to sixteen cubits. This ruling is a combination of the two opinions, which is favorable to the buyer. It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rava: How close may they be? Four cubits. And how far apart may they be? Sixteen cubits.

If one bought three trees planted in this manner, this one has acquired the land and the small trees that are between them. Therefore, if the tree dried up or was cut down he has ownership of the land. If the distance between the trees was less than this or more than this, or if he bought the trees one after the other, this buyer has not acquired either the land or the trees that are between them. Therefore, if the tree dried up or was cut down he has no ownership over the land.

§ Rabbi Yirmeya raises a dilemma: When one measures the distance between the trees, does he measure from the narrow place on the trunk of the tree or does he measure from the wide place? Rav Geviha of Bei Khatil said to Rav Ashi: Come and hear a proof, as we learned in a mishna (Kilayim 7:1): When one comes to measure from the layered branch of the vine he measures only from the second root, as this is the average, not the widest part of the vine.

Rabbi Yirmeya raises a dilemma: If the owner of the field sold to someone three branches that grew from one tree, and its trunk was covered with earth so that the branches appeared to be three separate trees, what is the halakha? Are they considered three trees, which would mean that their owner acquires the ground between them?

Rav Geviha of Bei Khatil said to Rav Ashi: Come and hear a proof, as we learned in a mishna (Kilayim 7:2): With regard to one who layers the branches of three vines into the ground so that they take root while still attached to the base of the vine, and their roots that rise above the ground are visible, Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Tzadok, says: If there is a distance between them of four cubits to eight cubits, they combine to form one vineyard composed of six grapevines. And if not, they do not combine. It can be inferred from this mishna that the different branches of a tree are considered separate entities when the trunk is covered by earth, provided the required distance between them is maintained.

Rav Pappa raises a dilemma: If the owner of a field sold to someone two trees in his field and one situated on its border, what is the halakha? Similarly, if one bought two trees in the field of one person and one in the field of another, what is the halakha? Do the trees combine to form one unit of three trees, or not? The Gemara states that this dilemma shall stand unresolved.