Bava Batra

R. Johanan said: The buyer does not acquire ownership;  and Resh Lakish said: The buyer does acquire ownership.  R. Johanan said [that] the buyer did not acquire ownership, [because] possession of usufruct is like the possession of the capital;  and Resh Lakish said [that] the buyer did acquire ownership [because] possession of usufruct is not like the possession of the capital. But, surely, on this [principle]  they have once disputed!  For it was stated: If a person sells the usufruct of his field,  R. Johanan said, [the buyer] must bring [the bikkurim]  and recite [the declaration];  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.  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!  — 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;  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;  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.  Now, if it were [so],  it should [revert] to the heirs of the [original] owner?  — He replied to him: Rab. Hoshaia in Babylon  has already explained this: It is different [when the expression], 'after you', [was used].  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.  [The estate] reverts to the heirs of the [original] owner!