Bava Batra 82B

כמלוא אורה וסלו. מתקיף לה רבי אלעזר: השתא דרך אין לו, אורה וסלו יש לו?! דרך אין לו ⁠– דארעא אחריתי היא; אורה וסלו ⁠– יש לו?!

he has acquired an area sufficient for a gatherer of figs and his basket in hand to stand close to the tree. R' Elazar objects to this: Now that the halakha is that the buyer has no path and must purchase a path through the field to access his trees; if so, does he have possession of an area for the gatherer and his basket? The Talmud elaborates: He has no path, even though he has no other means of gaining access to the trees, as the ground he acquired along with the trees is considered another land and is not part of the rest of the field. Why, then, would he have possession of an area for a gatherer and his basket?

אמר רבי זירא: מדברי רבינו נלמד, שלשה ⁠– הוא דאין לו דרך, הא שנים ⁠– יש לו, דאמר ליה: בארעא דידך קיימי.

R' Zeira says: From the statement, i.e., the objection, of our teacher, we learn that it is in the case of 3 trees that the owner of the trees has no path, as the buyer acquired a separate piece of land along with the trees. But in the case of two trees the buyer has a path, as he says to the owner of the field: My trees are standing on your land, and as I am allowed to use your field to tend to my trees I have the right to walk through your land to reach them.

אמר ליה רב נחמן בר יצחק לרבא: לימא רבי אלעזר לית ליה דשמואל רביה ⁠– דאמר שמואל: הלכה כרבי עקיבא, דאמר: מוכר בעין יפה מוכר?

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said to Rava: should we say that R' Elazar does not accept the opinion of Shmuel, who was his teacher? As Shmuel says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of R' Akiva, who says: One who sells, sells generously. According to R' Akiva, one sells in a manner that is advantageous for the buyer, and is presumed to have included in the sale even items that were not explicitly specified. In this case, as he has sold a tree that remains on his property, the seller grants the buyer the right to access his tree.