As for the roots, if a tree’s roots extend into the neighbour’s land, may the neighbour require the owner of the tree to cut the roots?

We say: there is some detail here. If the roots cause him harm or injury, he has the right to demand this; but if they cause him neither harm nor injury, he has no right to make such a demand, because this is among the matters customarily overlooked. They may harm or injure him by drawing moisture into his land, or perhaps by protruding above the surface of the ground. Some trees have strong roots that can push aside even pebbles. A person may have a cellar beneath his land, while the roots of his neighbour’s tree press against its wall—perhaps even until they cause it to collapse, or crack it if it is made of clay—and then hang down into that cellar. This is harm. Thus, the owner of the property may require the owner of the tree to cut these roots. But if he is neither harmed nor injured, we do not oblige him to remove them, because this is among the matters customarily overlooked.

His statement: “If he refuses, he should bend it,” meaning: if the owner of the tree refuses to remove it, the owner of the land should bend the branch.

His statement: “If possible,” means: if it is possible to bend it.

His statement: “Otherwise, he may cut it.” Thus, this branch is dealt with in stages:

First: the owner of the branch is asked to remove it.

Second: if he refuses, the branch is bent.

Third: if it cannot be bent because it is rigid, or if it cannot be bent except by breaking it, then he may cut it in order to ward off its harm.

But if someone were to say: A person should not demand the removal of