Bava Batra 272:1

אמר רבי יוחנן לא קנה לוקח וריש לקיש אמר קנה לוקח

R. Johanan said: The buyer does not acquire ownership;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even after the father's death, since the estate has never come into the possession of the son. ');">¹</span>

רבי יוחנן אמר לא קנה לוקח קנין פירות כקנין הגוף דמי

and Resh Lakish said: The buyer does acquire ownership.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' After the death of the father, as the representative of the son who, if alive, would have been entitled to the inheritance. ');">²</span>

וריש לקיש אמר קנה לוקח קנין פירות לאו כקנין הגוף דמי

R. Johanan said [that] the buyer did not acquire ownership, [because] possession of usufruct is like the possession of the capital;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the usufruct was in the ownership of the father, the capital, i.e., the soil also is regarded as being in his possession, and the son, therefore, is not entitled to transfer it to a buyer. ');">³</span>

והא איפליגו בה חדא זימנא דאיתמר המוכר שדהו לפירות רבי יוחנן אמר מביא וקורא וריש לקיש אמר מביא ואינו קורא

and Resh Lakish said [that] the buyer did acquire ownership [because] possession of usufruct is not like the possession of the capital.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The soil, therefore, was the undisputed property of the son who, consequently, was fully entitled to transfer it to a buyer. ');">⁴</span>

רבי יוחנן אמר מביא וקורא קסבר קנין פירות כקנין הגוף דמי וריש לקיש אמר מביא ואינו קורא קנין פירות לאו כקנין הגוף דמי

But, surely, on this [principle]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whether possession of usufruct is like the possession of the capital. ');">⁵</span>

אמר לך ר' יוחנן אף על גב דבעלמא קנין פירות כקנין הגוף דמי הכא אצטריך סלקא דעתך אמינא אבא לגבי בריה אחולי אחיל קא משמע לן

they have once disputed!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why then dispute it again? ');">⁶</span>

ורבי שמעון בן לקיש אמר אף על גב דבעלמא קנין פירות לאו כקנין הגוף דמי הכא אצטריך סלקא דעתך אמינא כל לגבי נפשיה אפילו במקום בריה נפשיה עדיפא ליה קא משמע לן

For it was stated: If a person sells the usufruct of his field,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'his field for fruit'. ');">⁷</span>

איתיביה רבי יוחנן לריש לקיש נכסי לך ואחריך יירש פלוני ואחריו יירש פלוני מת ראשון קנה שני מת שני קנה שלישי

R. Johanan said, [the buyer] must bring [the bikkurim]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' First ripe fruit. V. Deut. XXVI, 2. ');">⁸</span>

מת שני בחיי ראשון יחזרו נכסים ליורשי ראשון

and recite [the declaration];<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 3-10. ');">⁹</span>

ואם איתא ליורשי נותן מיבעי ליה

and Resh Lakish said, he must bring but does not recite. R. Johanan said [that] he must bring and recite because he holds the opinion that possession of usufruct is like the possession of the capital.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence he may recite the declaration which contains the sentence, 'the land which thou hast given me'. ');">¹⁰</span>

אמר ליה כבר תרגמה רב הושעיא בבבל אחריך שאני וכן רמי רבה בר רב הונא קמיה דרב ואמר אחריך שאני

and Resh Lakish said [that] he must bring but not recite [because in his opinion] the possession of usufruct is not like the possession of the capital!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why then dispute it again? ');">⁶</span>

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>