Reference for Bava Batra 35:15

אי הכי אימא סיפא רבי יוסי מתיר בחרדל מפני שיכול לומר לו עד שאתה אומר לי הרחק חרדלך מן דבוראי הרחק דבורך מן חרדלאי שבאות ואוכלות לגלוגי וחרדלאי

each one can plant close up to the fence on his own side.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra 26a. ');">¹¹</span> If that is so,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., that there is hard rock between. ');">¹²</span> what do you make of the next clause: 'If the roots of his tree spread into his neighbour's field, he may cut them out to a depth of three handbreadths, so that they should not impede the plough'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra 26a. ');">¹¹</span> Now if there is hard rock between, how can the roots get there? — What the passage means is this: If there is no hard rock between and the roots spread into his neighbour's field, then he may cut them out to a depth of three handbreadths, so as not to impede the plough. Come and hear: A tree [in one man's field] must be kept twenty five cubits from a pit [in another man's field]. The reason is that there is a pit; if there is no pit, he may plant close up? — No; even if there is no pit he may not plant close up, and this statement teaches us that up to twenty-five cubits the roots are liable to spread and injure the pit. If that is so, what do you make of the next clause: 'If the tree was there already, he is not required to cut it down'? Now if he may not plant close up, how can you apply this statement?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If, on the other hand, it was planted there illegally, why should it not be cut down? ');">¹³</span> — As R. papa said in another connection, 'in the case of a purchase;'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. infra. ');">¹⁴</span> so here, in the case of a purchase.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., if a man planted a tree in his field and then sold half of the field, not containing the tree, and the purchaser dug a pit within 25 cubits of the tree, the original owner is not required to cut it down. ');">¹⁵</span> Come and hear: Water in which flax is steeped must be kept at a distance from vegetables. and leeks from onions, and mustard from a beehive.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra 25a. Rashi explains that the bees taste the mustard and then eat their honey to take away the sharpness. ');">¹⁶</span> The reason is that there are vegetables there; otherwise he may bring them close up [to the boundary]? — No; even if there are no vegetables he may not bring them close up, and what this statement teaches us is that these things are bad for one another. If that is so, what of the next clause: R. Jose declares it permissible in the case of mustard; [and it has been taught in reference to this, that the reason is]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The bracketed part is omitted in our printed texts. ');">¹⁷</span> because the sower can say to his neighbour. 'Just as you can tell me to remove my mustard from your bees, I can tell you to remove your bees from my mustard, because they come and eat the stalks of my mustard plants'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And you are as liable to damage me as I am you. ');">¹⁸</span>

Jastrow

Jastrow