Jerusalem Talmud Bava Metzia 10:6

משנה: שְׁתֵּי גִנּוֹת זוֹ עַל גַּב זוֹ וְהַיָּרָק בֵּינְתַּיִים רִבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר שֶׁל עֶלְיוֹן. רִבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר שֶׁל תַּחְתּוֹן. אָמַר רִבִּי מֵאִיר וּמַה אִם יִרְצֶה הָעֶלְיוֹן לִיקַּח אֶת עֲפָרוֹ אֵין כָּאן יָרָק. אָמַר רִבִּי יְהוּדָה אִם יִרְצֶה הַתַּחְתּוֹן לְמַלְאוֹת גִּינָּתוֹ עָפָר אֵין כָּאן יָרָק. אָמַר רִבִּי מֵאִיר וְכִי מֵאַחַר שֶׁשְּׁנֵיהֶן יְכוֹלִין לְמַחוֹת זֶה עַל זֶה רוֹאִין מְנַיִין יָרָק זֶה חָייָה. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר כָּל־שֶׁהָעֶלְיוֹן יָכוֹל לִפְשׁוֹט אֶת יָדוֹ וְלִיטּוֹל הֲרֵי הוּא שֶׁלּוֹ וְהַשְּׁאָר שֶׁל תַּחְתּוֹן. MISHNAH: Two vegetable gardens, one on top of the other⁶³One on the slope of a hill, the other in the valley. and vegetables growing between them. Rebbi Meїr says, it is the upper’s⁶⁴The owner’s of the upper plot.. Rebbi Jehudah says, it is the lower’s⁶⁵The owner’s of the lower plot.. Said Rebbi Meїr: If the upper’s owner wanted to remove his earth, there would be no vegetables. Said Rebbi Jehudah: If the lower’s wanted to fill up his vegetable garden with earth, there would be no vegetables. Said Rebbi Meїr: Since both of them may object to one another one looks from where these vegetables grow⁶⁶The wild growing vegetable in between grows from the water with which the upper plot is irrigated.. Rebbi Simeon says, any which the upper’s may take by stretching out his hand are his; the remainder is the lower’s.

הלכה: שְׁתֵּי גִינּוֹת כול׳. מַה יַעֲשׂוּ. אֶפְרַיִם בְּשֵּׁם רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר. יַחֲלוֹקוּ. דְּבֵית רִבִּי יַנַּאי אָֽמְרֵי. עַד יֹ טְפָחִים. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי יַנַּאי. וּבִלְבַד שֶׁלֹּא יוּאֲנָס. HALAKHAH: “Two vegetable gardens,” etc. What shall one do? Ephraim⁶⁷In the Babli, 119a, he is called “Ephraim the scribe, R. Simeon ben Laqish’s student.” But there, he is quoted as deciding following R. Simeon (cf. Note 69). in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, they shall split⁶⁸Since it was not decided whom to follow in practice, it is “money in doubt” and must be split evenly (Chapter 1, Note 5).. In the House of Rebbi Yannai they say, up to ten handbreadths⁶⁹They decide following R. Jehudah who has precedence over R. Meïr and R. Simeon (Terumot 3:1, Notes 25,26). The owner of private property owns the rights to its airspace without limitations (Babli Šabbat 7a/b), but for any domain not purely private property, the domain only extends ten handbreadths from the ground (Kilaim6:2, Note 31, Šabbat 11:2 13a l. 32; Babli Šabbat 7b). Since the area between the two vegetable gardens is not the private domain of either of them, the domain of the owner of the lower plot cannot extend to more than 10 handbreadths above his ground.. Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Yannai: Only he shall not force himself⁷⁰He decides following R. Simeon, following the rule that if a dispute between two authorities in the Mishnah is not resolved, practice follows the third opinion which arbitrates between the two (Babli Šabbat 39b, R. Joḥanan in the name of R. Yannai). He qualifies the right of the owner of the upper plot in that he has a right only to those vegetables which he can reach without undue exertion. In the Babli, 119a, this opinion is quoted in the name of the House of R. Yannai..

כּוֹתֵל שֶׁבֵּין שְׁתֵי מְחִיצוֹת וְנִפְרָץ. רַב וּשְׁמוּאֵל. חַד אָמַר. מֶחֱצָה לָזֶה וּמֶחֱצָה לָזֶה. וְחַד אָמַר. כּוּלּוֹ לָזֶה וְכוּלּוֹ לָזֶה. מַה מַפְקָה מִבֵּינֵיהוֹן. מָצָא מְצִיאָה. מָאן דָּמַר. מֶחֱצָה לָזֶה וּמֶחֱצָה לָזֶה. מֵחֶצְיוֹ וְהֵילֵךְ לָזֶה וּמֵחֶצְיוֹ וְהֵילֵךְ לָזֶה. וּמָאן דָּמַר. כּוּלּוֹ לָזֶה וְכוּלּוֹ לָזֶה. הַמּוֹצֵא זָכָה. A wall between two partitions⁷¹The scribe first wrote שתי חצירות "two courtyards" and then corrected it to שתי מחיצות "two partitions". The problem to be corrected was that a courtyard usually is a condominium of many home owners dwelling in the same compound, whereas clearly, we are dealing here with only two owners. The corrected text is confirmed by E; the scribe's original text is quoted by Sefer ha'Iṭṭur (Warsaw 1883, vol. 1, part 2, p. 24b Note 14). which was breached. Rav and Samuel, one said, half belongs to one party, the other half to the other party. The other said, both own it entirely. What is the difference between them? If one found a find. For him who said that half belongs to one party, the other half to the other party, if it was on one side it belongs to this party, one the other side it belongs to the other party. For him who said that both own it entirely, the finder acquired it⁷²Since abandoned property on private grounds automatically belongs to the owner..