Bava Batra — Daf 82a

עד שתהא לקיחה והבאה כאחד והא ליכא א"ל רב אחא בריה דרב אויא לרב אשי מכדי פסוקי נינהו ליקרי

א"ל משום דמחזי כשיקרא רב משרשיא בריה דרב חייא אמר דלמא אתי לאפקועינהו מתרומה ומעשר:

הגדילו לא ישפה כו': היכי דמי מן הגזע והיכי דמי מן השרשין

א"ר יוחנן כל שרואה פני חמה זהו מן הגזע ושאינו רואה פני חמה זהו מן השרשין

וליחוש דלמא מסקא ארעא שירטון וא"ל תלתא זבינת לי ואית לי ארעא אלא אמר רב נחמן יקוץ וכן אמר רבי יוחנן יקוץ

אמר רב נחמן נקיטינן דקל אין לו גזע סבר רב זביד למימר אין לו גזע לבעל דקל דכיון דלמחפר ולשרש קאי אסוחי מסח דעתיה

מתקיף לה רב פפא והא קונה שני אילנות דלמחפר ולמשרש קיימי וקתני דיש לו גזע אלא אמר רב פפא אין לו גזע לבעל דקל לפי שאין מוציא גזע

ולרב זביד קשיא מתניתין דזבין לחמש שנין:

קנה שלשה קנה קרקע: וכמה א"ר חייא בר אבא א"ר יוחנן הרי זה קנה תחתיהן וביניהן וחוצה להן

the taking and the bringing must be performed by the same man; and in the present case, this has not been done. R. Aha son of Awia said to R. Ashi: Behold, are not these really scriptural verses?  Let him recite them!  He replied unto him: [One must not recite the verses] because it would appear [as telling] a lie. R. Mesharsheya the son of R. Hiyya said: [Because the fruit] might [mistakenly] be excluded from the heave-offering and from the tithe. [IF THE TREES] GREW LARGE [THE LANDOWNER] MUST NOT CUT DOWN THEIR BRANCHES etc. What is considered [to be] from the stem and what is considered [to be] from the roots? — R. Johanan said: Whatever is exposed  to the sun is of the stem, and whatever is not exposed  to the sun is of the roots. [How can it be said that all that grows from the stem belongs to the buyer?] Is there not cause to apprehend that the ground might produce alluvium [covering up the knots of the lowest shoots] and that [the buyer] would say [to the landowner]: 'You have sold me three [trees] and I have, [therefore, a share of the] ground'?  — But R. Nahman replied: [The buyer] must cut [them] off.  R. Johanan also said: He must cut [them] off. R. Nahman said: We have it by tradition [that] a palm-tree has no stem.  R. Zebid was of the opinion that this means [that] the owner of the palm-tree has no [rights to that which grows from the] stem, because since [the tree] is destined [when it dries up] to be dug and taken out with the roots,  [the buyer] discards [the shoots] from his mind.  R. Papa, [however], raised [the following] difficulty: Surely, [the case of him who] BUYS TWO TREES [includes also such trees] as are destined to be dug up and taken out with the roots  and [yet] the [Mishnah] teaches that [THE BUYER] HAS [A TITLE TO] THE STEM!  — But, said R. Papa, [the reason why] the owner of the palm-tree has no [title to the] stem [is]  because the stem does not [usually] produce [any shoots]. According to R. Zebid,  however, [there remains] the difficulty of our Mishnah!  — [Our Mishnah deals with the case] where [the trees] were sold for five years. ONE WHO BOUGHT THREE [TREES] HAS [IMPLICITLY] ACQUIRED [OWNERSHIP OF THE] GROUND. And how much [ground]? — R. Hiyya b. Abba said in the name of R. Johanan: He has acquired [the ownership of the ground] beneath [the trees] and between them, and round about  them