וּתְנַן נָמֵי גַּבֵּי עָרְלָה כִּי הַאי גַוְונָא: אִילָן הַיּוֹצֵא מִן הַגֶּזַע וּמִן הַשָּׁרָשִׁין – חַיָּיב בְּעָרְלָה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: מִן הַגֶּזַע – פָּטוּר, מִן הַשָּׁרָשִׁין – חַיָּיב.

And we also learned a case like this in a baraita (Tosefta, Orla 1:4), with regard to the prohibition against eating the fruit of a tree during the first three years after its planting [orla]: In the case of a tree that sprouts from the trunk and from the roots of an old tree, its owner is obligated in orla, since it is considered like a new tree, and the orla years must be counted anew. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says: If it sprouts from the trunk, the owner is exempt, since it is considered like a branch of the old tree, but if it grows from the roots, the owner is obligated.

וּצְרִיכִי, דְּאִי אַשְׁמוֹעִינַן קַמַּיְיתָא: בְּהָא קָאָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה מִשּׁוּם דְּמָמוֹנָא, אֲבָל גַּבֵּי עָרְלָה דְּאִיסּוּרָא – אֵימָא מוֹדֵי לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי מֵאִיר. וְאִי אִיתְּמַר בְּהָא: בְּהָא קָאָמַר רַבִּי מֵאִיר, אֲבָל בְּהַהִיא – אֵימָא מוֹדֵי לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, צְרִיכִי.

The Gemara comments: And both cases are necessary to be stated although they are both based on the same principle. As had it taught us only the first halakha, that of ownership, one could say that it is only with regard to this case that Rabbi Yehuda said his ruling, due to the fact that it pertains to monetary matters, but with regard to orla, which is a matter of a prohibition, one could say that he concedes to Rabbi Meir. And if it was stated only with regard to this case of orla, one could say that it is only with regard to this case that Rabbi Meir said his stringent ruling, but with regard to that case, one could say that he concedes to Rabbi Yehuda. It is therefore necessary to state both disputes.

אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: כֹּל שֶׁהָעֶלְיוֹן יָכוֹל לִפְשׁוֹט [וְכוּ׳]. אָמְרִי דְּבֵי רַבִּי יַנַּאי: וּבִלְבַד שֶׁלֹּא יֵאָנֵס.

§ The mishna teaches: Rabbi Shimon said: Any vegetables that the owner of the upper garden can stretch out his hand and take, those vegetables are his, and the rest belong to the owner of the lower garden. In the school of Rabbi Yannai they say: And this is only so provided that he does not force himself, but simply stretches out his hand in the usual manner.

בָּעֵי רַב עָנָן, וְאִיתֵּימָא רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה: מַגִּיעַ לְנוֹפוֹ וְאֵין מַגִּיעַ לְעִיקָּרוֹ, מַגִּיעַ לְעִיקָּרוֹ וְאֵין מַגִּיעַ לְנוֹפוֹ, מַאי? תֵּיקוּ.

Rav Anan, and some say it was Rabbi Yirmeya, raised a dilemma: If the owner of the upper garden can reach its leaves, but he cannot reach its roots, or if he can reach its roots but he cannot reach its leaves, what is the halakha? Is the plant considered to be within his reach or not? No answer was found for this question, and the Gemara concludes: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.

אָמַר אֶפְרַיִם סָפְרָא תַּלְמִידוֹ שֶׁל רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ מִשּׁוּם רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. אַמְרוּהָ קַמֵּיהּ דְּשַׁבּוּר מַלְכָּא, אֲמַר לְהוּ: אָפְרִין נִמְטְיֵיהּ לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן.

Efrayim the scribe, a student of Reish Lakish, says in the name of Reish Lakish: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. They stated this case before the Persian King Shapur, who expressed an interest in this legal issue, and he said to them: Let us offer praise [apiryon] to Rabbi Shimon. He too felt that this was the best resolution.

הֲדַרַן עֲלָךְ הַבַּיִת וְהָעֲלִיָּיה וּסְלִיקָא לַהּ מַסֶּכֶת בָּבָא מְצִיעָא