daf bit: Bava Batra 27

[cellio]

If a man's tree overhangs the boundary with his neighbor's field, the neighbor may cut away branches to a height that allows him to use his plow. If the tree is a carob or sycamore he can cut all branches plumb with the boundary, because these trees are excessively shady. If the field is irrigated he can cut all branches plumb regardless of the type of tree, because the shade harms the field. (27b)

The g'mara here does not address ownership of the cut wood (or fruit, if in season). In a previous discussion of roots that encroach a neighbor's field, the g'mara said that the neighbor may cut the roots and he owns the wood. I would suspect, therefore, that he owns the wood of the branches, but I don't know if that applies to fruit. Roots or branches don't change, but fruit comes and goes. If the neighbor waits until the tree bears fruit to complain, knowing that he'll get the fruit, wouldn't that raise questions? I would not be surprised if he doesn't get the fruit. And it's possible that he doesn't get the wood either for similar reasons; with the roots he doesn't know the quality of the wood until he digs (and the soil itself might do damage there), but he can see the branches. See -- I can postulate reasoning consistent with the rabbis; I just don't know the answers. :-)

Comments

[http://users.livejournal.com/merle_/]

If a man's tree overhangs the boundary with his neighbor's field, the neighbor may cut away branches to a height that allows him to use his plow.

I wonder how that applies to public sidewalks that are unwalkable because a neighbour has let his shrubbery overrun the area.

Not that I actually own a plow...

[cellio]

Ask and ye shall receive (this time :-) ):

Mishnah: If a tree overhangs a public thoroughfare the branches should be cut away to a height sufficient to allow a camel to pass underneath with its rider. R. Yehudah says, sufficient for a camel laden with flax or bundles of vine-rods. R. Shimon says that [the branches of] all trees should be cut away plumb (with the street) to
guard against uncleanness. (27b, quoting Soncino translation)

(That last part isn't about, say, what birds do to passersby and windshields from above, but something more specific and complex that I'll only try to explain if asked.)

[http://users.livejournal.com/merle_/]

COOL!

Hrm, I don't own a camel either. Still, they are definitely in violation. (actually, quite a few trees here hang over the sidewalks low enough that I have to duck.. clearly I should complain to the city elders)

[cellio]

Well, as they'll tell you in small-claims court, getting a judgment is one thing but enforcement is another matter entirely. :-)

(Though if you're going to assert that the community should be bound by halacha, do make sure you want to be bound by all of it...)

By the way, you might be able to rent a camel from somewhere, though I'm not sure whom to ask. Many years ago I rented a rabbit (from a pet store) for a production of The Effect of Gamma Rays on Man-in-the-Moon Marigolds; I'm not sure where I got the idea. (I was in high school at the time.)

[kmelion.livejournal.com]

This is pretty timely. One of our nextdoor neighbors has a palm tree and some of the branches (mostly dead) overhangs into our yard. Normally it wouldn't be an issue but... it will also be right over part of our Sukkah and that would invalidate those spots...

[cellio]

That would be a problem, yes.

I don't know if you can reason about the sukkah from the field here. It might come down to the question of whether there is any other place you can put your sukkah. The rabbis might argue that it's easier to move a sukkah than a cultivated field. I'm not saying I agree with them; I'm just raising the question. Consult your rabbi, etc.