since they are causing harm to the land, the seller does leave the land that is surrounding the trees for himself, as if he did not leave it, let the buyer say to him: Uproot your trees and go.

The Gemara discusses the reverse case: If one sold the trees and left the ownership of the land for himself, the halakha depends on the outcome of the dispute of Rabbi Akiva and the Rabbis. According to Rabbi Akiva, who says: One who sells, sells generously, the buyer has ownership of the land surrounding the trees, as the presumption is that the seller included it in the sale. According to the Rabbis, who say: One who sells, sells sparingly, the buyer does not have ownership of the land surrounding the trees, as the presumption is that the seller did not include it in the sale.

The Gemara stated previously that according to the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, the buyer has ownership of the land surrounding the trees. The Gemara clarifies this opinion: And even according to Rav Zevid, who said (37a) that in a case where one took possession of the land and another took possession of the trees, the one who took possession of the trees has no share in the land, that matter applies only concerning the case of two buyers. As in that case, the one who acquired the land can say to the other: Just as it is so that I have no share in the trees, you also have no share in the land; but here, where one sold the trees and left the land for himself, one who sells, sells generously. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that the sale included the land surrounding the trees.

The Gemara stated earlier that according to the opinion of the Rabbis, the buyer does not have ownership of the land surrounding the trees. The Gemara clarifies this opinion: And even according to Rav Pappa, who says above that in a case where one took possession of the land and another took possession of the trees that the one who took possession of the trees has ownership of half of the land as well, that matter applies only concerning the case of two buyers. As in that case, the one who acquired the trees can say to the other: Just as it is so that the seller sold to you generously, as you have both the land and the right to consume its produce, he also sold to me generously, including the land surrounding the trees; but here, where one sold the trees and left the land for himself, one who sells, sells sparingly, retaining for himself whatever he did not explicitly include in the sale.

§ The Sages of Neharde’a say: If one consumed the produce of an overcrowded orchard, he does not thereby have presumptive ownership of the orchard. Rava objects to this: If that is so, how does one ever acquire this alfalfa field, which is planted without spacing? Rather, Rava said: If one sold an overcrowded orchard, the buyer does not have ownership of the land surrounding the trees. Generally, if one purchases three or more trees, he acquires the surrounding land, as the trees are considered an orchard. If the trees are overcrowded, they will soon have to be uprooted, and that is why the buyer does not acquire the land surrounding the trees.

Rabbi Zeira said: This is like a dispute between tanna’im (Kilayim 5:2): With regard to a vineyard that is planted on an area where there is less than four cubits of open space between the vines, Rabbi Shimon says: It is not considered to be a vineyard with regard to the prohibition of diverse kinds and other halakhot, as it is overcrowded. And the Rabbis say: This is considered to be a vineyard, and the reason for this is that the middle vines are viewed as if they are not there, and the outer vines meet the requirements for a vineyard. It follows that according to the opinion of the Rabbis, if one sold an overcrowded orchard, the middle trees would be viewed as if they were not there. Therefore, it would be considered an orchard and the buyer would acquire the land surrounding the trees.

The Sages of Neharde’a say: This one who sells a date tree to another, the buyer acquires the land from its bottom until the depths.