Responsa for Bava Batra 272:12

והתניא יחזרו ליורשי נותן

— R. Johanan [can] answer you: Although possession of usufruct is, generally, like the possession of the capital [itself], it was necessary [to re-state the principle] here; since it might have been supposed [that] a father would renounce his claims in favour of his son;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And that, consequently, the soil is the son's despite the usufruct of the father. ');">¹¹</span> so he taught us [that this is not so]. And R. Simeon b. Lakish [can] answer you: Although possession of usufruct is, generally, not like the possession of the capital [itself], it was necessary [to re-state the principle] here; since it might have been supposed [that] whenever [it is a matter] of self-interest a man considers himself first even where there is a son;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As the father retained for himself the usufruct so he also retained his rights in the soil. ');">¹²</span> so he taught us [that this is not so]. R. Johanan raised an objection against Resh Lakish: [If a person said]. 'I give my estate to you; and after you, X shall be [my] heir; and after X, Y shall be my heir', [when the] first dies, the second acquires the ownership; when the second dies the third acquires ownership. [If] the second dies in the lifetime of the first the estate reverts to the heirs of the first.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 129b. ');">¹³</span> Now, if it were [so],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That possession of the usufruct is not like the possession of the capital itself. ');">¹⁴</span> it should [revert] to the heirs of the [original] owner?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'giver'. Since the first recipient enjoyed only the usufruct, the capital must have remained in the possession of the original owner; and, consequently when the second dies, the estate should revert to the heirs of him to whom the soil belonged. ');">¹⁵</span> — He replied to him: Rab. Hoshaia in Babylon<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [A pupil of R. Johanan who hailed from Babylon, in contradistinction to R. Hoshaiah, the teacher of R. Johanan. Some MSS delete 'in Babylon' and may thus refer to the latter.] ');">¹⁶</span> has already explained this: It is different [when the expression], 'after you', [was used].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By the use of 'after you', the owner has clearly intimated that the first, while alive, was to have possession of both capital and usufruct. Elsewhere, however, acquisition of usufruct alone is not the same as the acquisition of the capital itself. ');">¹⁷</span> Rabbah son of R. Huna pointed out the same incongruity in the presence of Rab, who [likewise] replied: It is different [when one used the expression] 'after you'. But, surely, it was taught.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even in the case where 'after you' was used. ');">¹⁸</span> [The estate] reverts to the heirs of the [original] owner!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which shows that even in such a case the possession of usufruct is not at all like the possession of the capital, how then can R. Johanan maintain the view, contradictory to the Baraitha, that possession of usufruct is always like the possession of the soil itself? ');">¹⁹</span>

Teshuvot Maharam