There is a discussion in the talmud/halacha about if a plant grows between an upper floor and lower floor, who does the plant belong to. [I don't have the source, I only heard part of a class in passing.]

Is there any consideration taken into account about the fact that leaves are a necessary part of the plant, and since they may be located in the domain of the upper floor, therefore, the resident of the upper floor should have a part of the ownership of the plant?

  • Bava Basra 136, a long discussion if kinyan peiros is a kinyan haguf or not
    – Chatzkel
    Jul 14 at 3:05
  • @Chatzkel 136a or 136b ?
    – larry909
    Jul 14 at 3:06
  • 1
    136B. Sorry about that
    – Chatzkel
    Jul 14 at 3:17
  • 1
    The Talmud is discussing a general question about ownership of a benefit vs ownership of the actual item, not directly about photthynthesis. There are other places like shabbos 4b and others that discuss if the leaves of a tree are able to be separated from the trunk for different halachos. I don't know of any source that links any of it to photthynthesis, although it might be a possible explanation
    – Chatzkel
    Jul 14 at 3:24
  • 1
    The case mentioned in the OP is likely the one at the end of Bava Metzia, שתי גנות זו על גב זו והירק בינתים (two gardens, one higher than the other, with a herb growing out of the ground between them), where R' Meir, R' Yehuda and R' Shimon argue who it belongs to. R' Meir uses the expression מהיכן ירק זה חי (from where does this herb live) and uses it to justify his opinion that it belongs to the owner of the upper garden. The implication seems to be that he sees it as "living" from the earth it's rooted in.
    – Meir
    Jul 14 at 16:10

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .