Siman 216

Even though one who sells a field without specification sells all the trees within it, nevertheless it is good to specify in the deed that he sold it with all the trees within it. Similarly, one who sells an orchard to his fellow should write for him: "Acquire for yourself palms, dates, and *hutzin*"—which are palm branches. Even though he acquires them even if he did not specify, nevertheless, it is the "beauty of the deed" in order to remove himself from protests. Furthermore, when the deed comes before a beit din that is not expert in the law, they will not err in this since they are specified in the deed. Similarly, one who sells land to his fellow should write for him: "And I have not left for myself anything in this sale," in order to remove himself from laws and claims. And although there is a concern for the opposite—that a beit din that is not expert will give to the buyer what they do not need to give him, such as a grafted carob tree or the trunk of a sycamore—truly in this there is no concern, for a beit din that is not expert is accustomed to be stringent against the buyer because every doubt they establish in the hand of the seller since he is the *muhzak*, for in this you have no judge who is not expert. The concern is only that they will not give the buyer what must be given to him [Sma]. And proof for this is from what was explained in siman 214, section 6, and in siman 215, section 5: that when the seller specified what he reserved for himself when he did not need to, there is a benefit that he does not need to purchase a path from the buyer. If we were to say that even in this the "beauty of the deed" applies, there would be no proof from his specification, and we would say that for the sake of the beauty of the deed he specified thus. Rather, certainly what the sages, of blessed memory, said to specify because of the "beauty of the deed" is only for something that reaches the buyer and not the seller [it appears to me]. And know that the "beauty of the deed" applies only to a deed and not to oral speech [Tosafot Bava Batra 69b]. If so, there is no complete proof from there, but nevertheless, such is the primary ruling [it appears to me].

One who sells a field to his fellow and there were palm trees in it, and he said to him, "Except for such-and-such a palm tree," we see: if that palm tree is of the superior ones or of the average ones, this palm tree remains for the seller and all the rest belong to the buyer, and the seller's intent was to benefit a little and he reserved one palm tree for himself [Rashbam ibid. and so it appears from all the Rishonim, and what the Levush wrote requires further study, and examine it closely]. But if the palm tree that he reserved is inferior, such as one that does not produce a kav of fruit, it is not logical to say that he reserved only this palm tree for himself, for of what significance is it? Rather, presumably he did not sell the palm trees at all, and that which he mentioned this palm tree is like one who says that even this palm tree which is inferior I did not sell to him, and all the more so those superior to it; and automatically, also those inferior to it he shall not acquire, for his primary intent is that he did not sell the palm trees, and he took this inferior palm tree as an illustration. And there are those who disagree and hold that he only did not acquire those superior to it, but those similar to it and all the more so those lesser than it he did acquire; for since by law they are sold with the field, and we only have an implication from the reservation, this is not a necessity except regarding the superior ones, but as for the rest, we have no reason to exclude them from the category of sold fields, in which the trees are also sold with them. And there are yet those who say that this is only regarding the species of tree that he reserved—for example, if he reserved an inferior date palm, he does not acquire all the date palms or those superior to it—but other species of trees found there, such as olives, carobs, and vines, since they are not of the species he reserved, the buyer acquires everything as in the case of ordinary fields that are sold.

In the time of our sages, of blessed memory, the world would call all fruit trees, such as olives, pomegranates, figs, apples, and the like, simply "trees," except for grapevines and date palms, which they did not call by the name "tree" alone. Rather, for grapevines they would call them "gofni" or "gepanim," and for date palms they would call them "dikli." However, occasionally there was someone who called them also by the name "tree" alone. Therefore, if one sold a field to another and said to him, "except for the trees," if there are all types of fruit trees there and also grapevines and date palms, he did not sell any of the trees, but the grapevines and the date palms are sold, for they are not included in the category of "trees" alone. But if there are only grapevines or date palms there, perforce the reservation applies to them. And if there were grapevines and date palms in it and no other species, our sages, of blessed memory, said that he reserved the grapevines and sold the date palms. And the reason is that even though both are not called "tree" alone except by way of happenstance, nevertheless grapevines are called "tree" alone more than date palms. And we do not say that he reserved the grapevines and the date palms, for it has already been explained that a seller sells with a generous eye, and anything we can say that he did not reserve in the sale, we say that he did not reserve. And some say the reason he reserved the grapevines and the date palms are sold is because grapevines are more significant, and certainly he reserved them for himself; and in this, the holder of the document is at a disadvantage, for since he perforce reserved one species from them, the burden of proof rests on the claimant. And so too if he sold the trees in his field, where he said to his fellow, "all trees in my field are sold to you," if there were other trees there and "gofni" and "dikla," he reserved the "gofni" and the "dikla" for himself, for they are not included in "trees" except by happenstance when there are no others. And if there were only "gofni" or "dikla" there, they are sold. And if there were "gofni" and "dikli" there, he sold the "gofni" and reserved the "dikli" for himself. And according to the "some say," it would be the opposite, for the burden of proof rests on the claimant. [It appears to me that these "some say" are brought in the Rashbam 69b, and his difficulty can be answered, and this is the opinion of the Rambam in chapter 24 as the Maggid Mishneh wrote in the name of the Ri Migash, see there; and what the Taz wrote requires further study, and examine it closely].

Our sages, of blessed memory, said [ibid.] that when he reserved trees, he only reserved trees that the yoke does not suppress, and anything that the yoke suppresses belongs to the buyer and is considered part of the field. And this is the explanation: for it was their way to plow around the trees, and if the yoke of the plow bends the tree and the ox passes on its way without being delayed by it, this is not included in the category of a tree and is like the ground. However, if all of them are thin trees that the yoke suppresses, perforce it is those that he reserved, and he reserved all of them. And when he reserved date palms, our sages, of blessed memory, said that he only reserved any date palm that one ascends with a rope, which is so tall that it is impossible to stand on the ground and gather the fruit at its top; for since the date palm does not have branches like other trees to stand upon, therefore one ascends it with a rope. And the rest, which one does not ascend with a rope, belong to the buyer. However, if all of them are such, perforce he reserved them. And the suppression of a yoke is not relevant to date palms, for even if the yoke suppresses it, it is significant if one ascends it with a rope [Rashbam]. And the measure of a rope is not relevant to other trees, for one ascends on the branches [ibid.]. And even though regarding shevi'it anything that has left the status of a sapling is called a tree, as the Rambam wrote in chapter 3 of Shemittah, nevertheless in sales our sages, of blessed memory, stated this measure that we have written, and it is possible that they are the same measure. And when he sold trees, one also follows this measure that has been explained. And when he sold trees and there were a majority of fruit trees and a minority of non-fruit-bearing trees, it was not explained if the non-fruit-bearing trees are also sold with them; and it appears that they are sold, for they are certainly included in the general term "trees," and so too regarding a reservation. And it has already been explained in the previous siman that a grafted carob and a sycamore trunk are not sold within the field, for they are significant and have a name of their own. And if there were many grafted carobs and sycamore trunks there, and he said to him, "except for such-and-such carob" or "except for such-and-such trunk," we do not say that all the rest are sold, for they are not included in the field. And it is not similar to the reservation of a date palm in section 2; rather, one must say that what he mentioned regarding this was superfluous language, and it is effective in that he has a path to that carob or trunk. But if he said regarding a carob that is not grafted and regarding a virgin sycamore, "except for such-and-such carob" and "except for such-and-such sycamore," there is no superfluous language here, and the rest that are like them belong to the buyer as with all trees [Sma].

One who says to his fellow, "A land of palms I am selling to you," even if there are no palms in the land, the purchase is valid, for its meaning is land that is fit for planting palms. However, if there are palms there, he has acquired them even when he spoke with this phrasing, for even if he sold land without specification, he acquires the palms; and this phrasing is to be interpreted as "a land of palms" in that the palms within it are good and bear much fruit [Levush]. And if he said to him, "Land with palms I am selling to you," if there were at least two palms there, he has acquired them; and if not, this is a mistaken purchase, for he said that there are palms in it. And if he said to him, "Land and palms I am selling to you," some say that these are two sales, and he has acquired the land with the palms within it, and he must also give him two more palms from another field that he owns. And if he has no palms in another place, he should buy two palms and give them to him in order to fulfill his word. Legally, he is not required to buy them, as a person cannot transfer ownership of something that is not in his possession, and he may return money to him according to the value of two palms. Nevertheless, the sale is not void, for this opinion holds that when one sells two sales at one time, only that he sold them in two utterances like this one who said "land and palms," even though one utterance is legally void, the second which can be sustained is not void, and they are not dependent on one another. So too, if there is not even one palm in the land, the sale is valid, for he did not say to him "land with palms" [Rashbam and the Rosh there]. And some say that he gives him only two palms and no more, even if there are many palms in the land, for the interpretation of "land and palms" is the land with two palms from it. And even though if he had not mentioned the palms at all he would have acquired all the palms, nevertheless, now that he mentioned them, it is worse. And if there are no palms there at all, he gives him palms from another place, according to the previous opinion [Tosafot ibid.]. The Rambam, of blessed memory, wrote in chapter 24: One who says to his fellow, "Land and palms I am selling to you," even if there were no palms in it, if he wanted to buy him two palms, the purchase is acquired, and the buyer cannot say, "I will only buy land that has palms in it." Thus far his words. For he holds that it is one sale. And if there are seven palms in the field, he does not need to buy others [Sma]; rather, even when there are no palms in it, he can buy from another place and give to him. And we do not compel him to this, for it is not in his possession and the sale is void; but if it is his desire to buy, the buyer cannot void the sale based on the claim that he sold him something that is not in his possession, for since it is common to buy, it is not considered exactly like something that is not in his possession [Kessef Mishneh there]. And furthermore, in any case, regarding the purchase of the land he can compel him when he wants to buy him two palms [Sha'ar HaMishpat]. And some say that he is obligated to buy two palms when he has none, and this is not something that is not in his possession, for since it is common to buy, it is like something that has come into the world, like one who fixes a price based on the market rate, as was explained in siman 209, section 16 [Ra'avad there]. And the opinion of the Rambam is that this is not called "common" like movable objects that stand for sale, and only regarding this matter is it called "common," that the buyer cannot void the sale when it is the seller's desire to buy, as I have written. And if there are many palms in the land, whether he must give him all of them or only two palms is not clarified in the Rambam. Our teacher, the Rema, wrote according to the first opinion.

According to what has been explained according to the first opinion, one who sells to his fellow two things, one that has come into the world and the second that has not come, the sale of the one is not voided because of the second. And even according to the opinion of the Rambam, it is not clear that he disagrees on this, for according to him it is one sale as I have written. However, the great later authorities understood his opinion, of blessed memory, that he disagrees on this and holds that the second is also voided by the voiding of the first. I do not know from where they derived this, for that which the sale here is voided when he does not give him palm trees is because it is one sale according to his opinion, except that it is not necessary that the palm trees be specifically in this land. We have already explained the details of this law in siman 203, section 6 and section 8; see there.

Our sages, of blessed memory, said that one who sells one tree or two trees, the buyer has no land forever, but only for as long as the trees stand. And one who sells three trees when they are planted as will be explained, even when they emerge from one root beneath the ground and above the ground they are separated into three, he has land [Tur]. Therefore, one who sells three trees within his field, even small saplings or three branches of a tree that emerge from one root, the buyer has the land appropriate for them as will be explained. And even if they dried up or were cut down, he may plant others in their place. And so too, he acquires all the small trees that are between them. And some say that if the trees are thin such that the yoke suppresses them, and regarding palm trees when one does not ascend them with a rope, he has not acquired the land between them, for our sages, of blessed memory, did not say that he acquired land regarding trees such as these. And our teacher, the Rema, wrote likewise.

How much is the land that is appropriate for them beneath them, between them, and outside of them? It is the space of the fruit-gatherer and his basket; that is, that the one who gathers the fruits can stand with the basket in which he places the fruits at the side of the trees. The land between them belongs to the buyer entirely, and he may even sow between them. However, that which is outside of them for the space of the fruit-gatherer and his basket is not his entirely, but rather it is subordinated to him for the gathering of the fruits; but he cannot sow it, and also the seller cannot sow there so that the fruits that fall from the trees will not be soiled by the soil that was plowed and softened. Therefore, neither of them can sow there without the consent of his fellow. And even if the seller stipulated at the time of the sale that he reserved the land between them for himself, nevertheless, the place of the trees themselves belongs to the buyer forever, and he may plant others when they dry up or if he cuts them down, unless he explicitly specified that he may not plant others beneath them.

And how shall be the placement of the trees and their distance from one another? That they should stand like the legs of a stove, which is like a segol, for when they stand in this manner the plow cannot pass between them, and since the ground is not fit for sowing, presumably it belongs to the trees. But if they stand in one row, presumably the seller reserved it for himself and he may sow it up to the extent of the gatherer and his basket from each one, since he can pass with a plow, and he has no land even beneath them, and when they dry up or are cut down, he may not plant others [Rambam and Tur]. And according to this, that which the sages, of blessed memory, said that with two trees he has no land because they are not considered an orchard, the same applies also with three in such a case, for with two it is impossible to be like a segol; rather, the truth is that with two, even without this reason, they lack importance [it appears to me]. And how much shall be the distance between tree and tree? From four cubits and up to sixteen cubits, for less than four cubits they do not have nourishment according to the need and are considered as if uprooted, and more than sixteen the ground is not nullified to them because of the greatness of the distance, and also regarding shaatnez of the vineyard there is no status of a vineyard upon this when they plant at a distance of more than sixteen cubits, as is explained in tractate Kilayim chapter 4. And this is the opinion of the Ra'avad in chapter 7 of the laws of Kilayim. And even though the Rambam ruled there like the one who says that more than eight there is no status of a vineyard upon this, why did he rule here in chapter 24 of Sale up to sixteen, when the Gemara [Bava Batra 83a] compares kilayim to sale? It appears to me that the Rambam, of blessed memory, holds that according to the conclusion of the sugya it is not so, for even without this they are not completely alike, for in kilayim sixteen is like more than sixteen and in sale it is like less [Tosafot ibid. s.v. kama, and the Rambam interprets that which Rava said, the halacha is from four to sixteen, not like the Rashbam there that it is entirely according to the Rabbanan, but rather this is what Rava is saying: in sale we adopt the largest measure in kilayim and the smallest in it].

From where do they measure the amot? From the wide base of the trees, which is the place where the tree emerges from the earth, which is thick. And if the trees stand like a segol, or if they were closer than four amot or further than sixteen, or if he bought them one after another, or if he sold him two in his field and one on the border, or two within his own and one within his fellow's—for example, if he has two trees at the edge of his field and he has one more tree that he bought in his fellow's field adjacent to them along with the ground, and he sold these three to one person [Rashbam]—or if there is an interruption of a pit or a water channel or a public domain between the trees, behold, this person does not have ground. And similarly, when a grafting of many palms interrupted between them [Gemara], he did not acquire the ground. And in all of these, except for when they do not stand like a segol, it is an inquiry in the Gemara and was not resolved, and every doubt we establish in the chazakah of the seller. And seizing does not avail regarding ground, which always stands in the chazakah of the original owners [Maggid Mishneh]. And even if the buyer claims after they dried up and he ate the fruits, we extract it from his hand, even according to the opinion of the poskim that seizing avails in a legal doubt; for since regarding the trees he has no seizing, automatically the fruits are in the domain of the seller [it appears to me]. And in all of these, he also did not acquire the small trees that are between them, and if the trees dried up or were cut down, he must go away. And in every place where it was explained that if the trees dried up he may not plant others in their place, this is specifically when they were cut down and their trunk does not regenerate and he needs to plant others; but if its trunk regenerates, this is not a new tree, but rather it is considered as rising from the trunk and belongs to the owner of the tree.

Anyone who purchased three trees and has land, if the branches grew and spread beyond the measure of the land that he has, he must prune them; even if they only grew within the space of the gatherer and his basket, for if he does not prune them, perhaps he will come to claim ownership of the space of the gatherer and his basket beyond the branches [Tur]. And even if he wishes to provide in writing that he only has such and such land, nevertheless, he can compel him because he diminishes his path, and also he cannot compel him to preserve the document [it appears to me]. And all the shoots and the upper branches that emerge from them, and even those emerging from the roots beneath the ground, they belong to the owner of the trees, for he has land and they grow from his land, which is not the case with two trees, as will be explained. And if the seller says they grew and the buyer says they did not grow, it is upon the buyer to bring proof, for the seller is the possessor [it appears to me].

One who purchases one tree or two trees within the field of his fellow does not have land. Therefore, if the tree dried out or was cut down and its trunk does not grow back, he has nothing. And if the trees grew and produced shoots and branches, he must cut them immediately, lest they emerge from the trunk near the ground and later be covered by earth until they appear as three, and the buyer will claim, "I purchased three trees and I have land." And even though when the seller denies him, the buyer must bring proof, nevertheless, it is not pleasing to him to enter into litigation and beit din [Sma]. But if the branches spread out even far away, he does not need to cut them; and even though the shade is bad for the seller regarding the seeds he sowed, nevertheless, he cannot compel him to cut. And in this, two are more lenient than three. The reason is that with three, where he has land, when his branches emerge from his land, he must cut; but with one or two, where he does not have land, but rather the seller subordinated his land to him as long as the trees stand, if so, there is no limit to how much land is subordinated to him. And so too, the buyer has the space of the fruit-gatherer and his basket, and certainly the space beneath them to collect the fruits, and the seller cannot sow there so that his fruits do not get soiled, as was written regarding three trees. And so too, he has a path to walk through the field of the seller for the needs of his trees, for a seller sells with a generous eye, and there is no difference between two and three in this, and as was written in siman 214 regarding a pit and a cistern. And even though with one or two it is not an absolute sale, nevertheless, as long as the trees stand, it is a complete sale; and furthermore, it is no worse than one who lends a place to his fellow to place his vessels there, for he also has a path to go to his vessels [Tur].

All the wood that the owner of one or two trees cuts, their law is as follows: the wood that grows from the trunk, which is the high place on the tree that sees the face of the sun, belongs to the owner of the trees. However, that which grows from the root, which is a place that does not see the face of the sun, belongs to the owner of the field, because their emergence is from the ground, only that they branch out from the tree, and the ground does not belong to the owner of the tree. And regarding a palm tree, the owner of the palm tree has nothing from that which grows, for a palm tree has no trunk, as its branches are only at its top, and therefore they ascend it with a rope, and it is not its way to produce a trunk; and it did not enter the mind of the buyer that it would produce a trunk and he would cut it. Therefore, even if it happened that it produced a trunk, it belongs to the owner of the ground [Rashbam]. And all this is regarding one or two palm trees, but regarding three, everything that emerges from them belongs to the buyer, since he purchased them and all their surroundings [Sma].

It has already been explained in siman 209 that when one withholds for himself, he withholds with a more generous eye than when he sells to another. Therefore, one who sells his land to another and withheld trees for himself, even if he only withheld one or two trees, nevertheless has land beneath them, so that if they dry up or are cut down, he may plant others. He also has the space of a fruit-picker and his basket to gather his fruit, and he can also sow around the tree, for he withheld this land for himself forever [Tosafot 71a]. And even though we explained in siman 214 regarding a cistern or a cellar that in everything one sells to his fellow, he sells with a generous eye, and therefore the seller has no path to the cistern or cellar that he withheld, why do we not say so here as well? In truth, they are not comparable, for there he did not withhold for himself any portion of the land at all; but here, perforce, he withheld for himself power in the land for all the days the trees stand, for if not so, the buyer would say to him, "Uproot your trees and go." And since he descended to withholding, he certainly withheld with a generous eye and forever, and everything that is necessary for them [ibid.]. This is like the distinction we wrote there in section 17 between the path to a cistern and the withholding of fruits in siman 219. Therefore, when he withheld three trees for himself, he has half the land, for since perforce he withheld for himself beneath them, between them, and outside them the space of a fruit-picker and his basket—for it is obvious that his status is not inferior to another—automatically, since he was forced to withhold, we say that he withheld for himself with a more generous eye than for others. This is the opinion of the Rambam, of blessed memory, who wrote that when he withheld three trees for himself, he has half the land. He ruled similarly where one sold land to this person and trees to that person [ibid. in chapter 24], that this one has half the land and that one has half. He holds that just as when he withheld two trees for himself his power is greater than another, so too when he withheld three for himself his power is greater than another. For if we were to say that he only has land according to what is necessary for the trees, his power would not be greater than another. Furthermore, since perforce it is as if he explicitly stipulated that he is withholding land for himself, it is like one who says to his fellow, "I am selling you my land and I shall also have a portion," where certainly this one takes half and that one takes half. However, when he sold three trees to another, he did not sell him land, and he only needs to give him what is necessary for the trees. This is not the case when he withheld for himself; if we were to say that he did not withhold land at all, the buyer would say to him, "Uproot your trees and go," and perforce it is as if he said explicitly, "I have left land for myself," and perforce he has half, as has been explained. This is what appears to me to be the opinion of the Rambam, of blessed memory. Nevertheless, many of our teachers disagree with him and hold that regarding three trees, he does not have greater power than another and has only what is necessary for them, and in this, "a generous eye" does not apply. Our teacher, the Rema, wrote likewise.

If one sold to two people at once, to this one the land and to this one the trees, and this one performed a chazakah on the trees and this one on the land, the Sages of blessed memory said [Bava Batra 37a] that this one acquired the trees and half the land, and this one acquired half the land. Behold, the Rambam, of blessed memory, ruled according to the plain meaning of the language, that the owner of the trees acquires half the land. One must say his reasoning is as I wrote in the previous section: since by necessity it is as if he mentioned land for the owner of the trees—for if not so, the owner of the land would say to him, "uproot your trees and go"—and since it is as if he mentioned land to him, it is like one who sold land to this one and to that one, where they divide the land between them. For when he sold three trees to another, even though it is considered as if he mentioned land to him, the hand of the buyer is on the bottom and he cannot take half; this is not the case when both are buyers, for just as this one takes half, so does this one, and certainly so when he reserved it for himself. However, many of our teachers explained that it is not meant literally, but rather that the owner of the trees only acquires the land necessary for the trees, and even if he only sold him two trees [Tur]. For since he sold to both of them, he sold to both of them with a generous eye, and the land necessary for the trees he sold to him forever. And there are those who say the opposite: that even with three trees he has nothing between them but only beneath them, so that if they die he may plant others beneath them; and so too with two trees or one tree. For since he sold to both of them with a generous eye, he did not sell to the owner of the land anything from the land beneath the tree, and he did not sell to the owner of the tree any land that is not beneath the tree. Our teacher, the Rema, wrote according to this opinion. Nevertheless, it appears to me that even according to this opinion, he has the space of a fruit-picker and his basket for gathering the fruits, for it is impossible without this, and it is like the tree itself. The opinion of the Rambam we have already explained, that he holds that this one takes half the land and this one half. It appears that this is only with three trees, for this law is no better than when he reserved it for himself. And regarding a chazakah that is not through a sale—for example, where this one performed a chazakah on the trees and this one on the land—it was explained at the end of siman 141 that when this one claims "it is all mine" and this one claims "it is all mine," the owner of the land acquires all the land, and the owner of the trees only acquires the trees and the land necessary for them. The Rambam himself ruled so in the twelfth chapter of To'en. It appears to me regarding his opinion, of blessed memory, that he holds it is not comparable to one who sold trees to this one and land to this one; for there we say such was the intent of the seller, because it is as if he explicitly mentioned land for the owner of the trees, as we explained. But in a mere chazakah, they only acquired by virtue of their chazakah, and the chazakah of the land did not leave anything for the chazakah of the trees, and only the land necessary for the trees is like the trees themselves. [And he explains that which is said in Bava Batra there, "this one performed a chazakah on the trees and this one on the land," as referring to a sale and not to a chazakah; and regarding a chazakah he wrote this based on logical reasoning, that each one stands by his chazakah. Thus all that they found difficult in his words is settled, and also settled is why the Rema did not comment at the end of siman 141 as he did here; and delve into this.]

One who buys trees to cut them for firewood, [the seller] did not sell them to him to destroy them entirely if their trunk regrows. Our sages, of blessed memory, said [ibid. 80b] that one who buys olive trees from his fellow to cut must leave from the tree near the ground two *grupiyot*, which are two branches near the ground, and then cut. If he bought a virgin sycamore that was never cut, he leaves three handbreadths from the ground and cuts. A sycamore trunk that was cut once, he leaves two handbreadths from the ground and cuts. Regarding other trees, he leaves a handbreadth and cuts. Regarding reeds and vines, he shall leave for the seller from the *pakek* and below, which is from the bottom knot, and he shall also leave the knot itself, for it was established by our sages, of blessed memory, that when he leaves these measurements, their trunk will regrow. But regarding palms and cedars, he digs and uproots from the root, for it was established by our sages, of blessed memory, that their trunk does not regrow, and therefore [the seller] certainly sold them so that he would cut them and uproot them from the root; and in this there is also a benefit for the seller, that the land will remain clear for him for sowing and planting. And it appears to me that this which our sages, of blessed memory, said, "he digs and uproots," is not an obligation upon the buyer, but rather that he is permitted to uproot, but the seller cannot compel him to uproot them. And such is the custom in our time: when they sell forest trees without specification, there is no obligation upon the buyer to uproot them and pull them from the root [so it appears to me].