## Bava Batra Daf 136b

###### Bava Batra 136b:1
[Bava Batra 136b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/136b:1)

אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: לֹא קָנָה לוֹקֵחַ. וְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר: קָנָה לוֹקֵחַ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The purchaser did not acquire** the property, **and Reish Lakish says: The purchaser acquired** the property.


###### Bava Batra 136b:2
[Bava Batra 136b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/136b:2)

רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: לֹא קָנָה לוֹקֵחַ – קִנְיַן פֵּירוֹת כְּקִנְיַן הַגּוּף דָּמֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains their reasoning: **Rabbi Yoḥanan says** that **the purchaser did not acquire** the property because he holds that **ownership of** the rights to use an item and the **profits** it engenders **is considered** to be **like ownership of the item itself.** Even though the property itself did not belong to the father, it is as though the father owned the property, because all of the produce belonged to him in practice. Therefore, the son’s sale can take effect only after the father’s death. If the son dies first, since he never attained ownership, his sale can never come to fruition.


###### Bava Batra 136b:3
[Bava Batra 136b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/136b:3)

וְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר: קָנָה לוֹקֵחַ – קִנְיַן פֵּירוֹת לָאו כְּקִנְיַן הַגּוּף דָּמֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Reish Lakish says: The purchaser acquired** the property, because he holds that **ownership of** the rights to use an item and the **profits** it engenders **is not considered** to be **like ownership of the item itself.** Therefore, the father’s rights do not prevent the son, who owns the property itself, from selling it, and eventually the purchaser receives full rights to it.


###### Bava Batra 136b:4
[Bava Batra 136b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/136b:4)

וְהָא אִיפְּלִיגוּ בַּהּ חֲדָא זִימְנָא! דְּאִיתְּמַר: הַמּוֹכֵר שָׂדֵהוּ לְפֵירוֹת – רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: מֵבִיא וְקוֹרֵא. וְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר: מֵבִיא, וְאֵינוֹ קוֹרֵא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But didn’t they** already **engage in a dispute** concerning **this** issue **one time? As it was stated:** With regard to **one who sells his field for** just its **produce,** meaning that he retains ownership over the field itself and he sells the rights to all of its produce to someone else, **Rabbi Yoḥanan says:** The purchaser **brings** first fruits from this field to the Temple **and recites** the verses in the Torah associated with the bringing of the first fruits, in which he thanks God for: “The land that You, Lord, have given me” (Deuteronomy 26:10). **And Reish Lakish says:** The purchaser **brings** the first fruits, **but he does not recite** the verses, since it is not his field.


###### Bava Batra 136b:5
[Bava Batra 136b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/136b:5)

רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר מֵבִיא וְקוֹרֵא – קָסָבַר: קִנְיַן פֵּירוֹת כְּקִנְיַן הַגּוּף דָּמֵי. וְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר: מֵבִיא וְאֵינוֹ קוֹרֵא – קִנְיַן פֵּירוֹת לָאו כְּקִנְיַן הַגּוּף דָּמֵי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains the reason behind the dispute: **Rabbi Yoḥanan says he brings** the first fruits **and recites** the verses because **he maintains** that **ownership of** the rights to use an item and the **profits** it engenders **is considered** to be **like** the **ownership of the item itself.** Even though the field itself does not belong to him, it is as if he acquired the field because all of the produce belongs to him in practice. **And Reish Lakish says** that **he brings** the first fruits **and does not recite** the verses **because** he holds that **ownership of** the rights to use an item and the **profits** it engenders **is not considered** to be **like** the **ownership of the item itself.** Why was it necessary for them to engage in a dispute concerning this issue twice?


###### Bava Batra 136b:6
[Bava Batra 136b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/136b:6)

אָמַר לָךְ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: אַף עַל גַּב דִּבְעָלְמָא קִנְיַן פֵּירוֹת כְּקִנְיַן הַגּוּף דָּמֵי, הָכָא אִצְטְרִיךְ; סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: אַבָּא לְגַבֵּי בְּרֵיהּ אַחוֹלֵי אַחֵיל, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: It was necessary for the dispute to be stated also in the context of one who sells his father’s property and then dies. This is because **Rabbi Yoḥanan** could have **said to you** that **although in general ownership of** the rights to use an item and the **profits** it engenders **is considered** to be **like** the **ownership of the item itself, here it was necessary** to emphasize this principle, because it might **enter your mind to say** that **with regard to a father and son,** the father presumably **waived** his rights in the property itself. Rabbi Yoḥanan **teaches us** that even in this case, the father’s ownership of the rights to use an item and the profits it engenders is considered to be like the ownership of the item itself.


###### Bava Batra 136b:7
[Bava Batra 136b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/136b:7)

וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אָמַר: אַף עַל גַּב דִּבְעָלְמָא קִנְיַן פֵּירוֹת לָאו כְּקִנְיַן הַגּוּף דָּמֵי, הָכָא אִצְטְרִיךְ; סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: כֹּל לְגַבֵּי נַפְשֵׁיהּ, אֲפִילּוּ בִּמְקוֹם בְּרֵיהּ, נַפְשֵׁיהּ עֲדִיפָא לֵיהּ; קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish** could have **said** that **although in general ownership of** the rights to use an item and the **profits** it engenders **is not considered** to be **like** the **ownership of the item itself,** as one who sells the produce of his field retains full ownership of the land itself, **here it was necessary** to emphasize this principle, as it might **enter your mind to say** that in **any** sale **concerning oneself, even vis-à-vis his son, one grants preference to himself.** Accordingly, if one grants the property itself to his son, reserving the rights to the produce for himself, he retains the rights to the property itself as well. Reish Lakish **teaches us** that he does not retain the rights to the property.


###### Bava Batra 136b:8
[Bava Batra 136b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/136b:8)

אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן לְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: ״נְכָסַי לְךָ, וְאַחֲרֶיךָ יִירַשׁ פְּלוֹנִי, וְאַחֲרָיו יִירַשׁ פְּלוֹנִי״ – מֵת רִאשׁוֹן, קָנָה שֵׁנִי. מֵת שֵׁנִי, קָנָה שְׁלִישִׁי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yoḥanan raised an objection to** the opinion of **Reish Lakish** from a *baraita* (*Tosefta* 8:4): If one states: **My property** will go **to you** after my death for your use during your lifetime, **and after you** die, **so-and-so will inherit** the property, **and after** the one who inherits after you dies, **so-and-so will inherit** the property, in this case, when **the first** recipient **dies, the second acquires** it, and when **the second dies, the third acquires** it.


###### Bava Batra 136b:9
[Bava Batra 136b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/136b:9)

מֵת שֵׁנִי בְּחַיֵּי רִאשׁוֹן – יַחְזְרוּ נְכָסִים לְיוֹרְשֵׁי רִאשׁוֹן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If **the second dies during the lifetime of the first, the property returns** after his death **to the heirs of the first,** and does not go to the third designated recipient, as his right was to inherit it from the second, who never received it.


###### Bava Batra 136b:10
[Bava Batra 136b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/136b:10)

וְאִם אִיתָא, לְיוֹרְשֵׁי נוֹתֵן מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if it is so** that ownership of the rights to use an item and the profits is not considered to be like ownership of the item itself, the *baraita* **should have** stated that the property returns **to the heirs of the giver,** as the first and second recipients received only the right to use the property and enjoy its profits during their lifetimes, after which it was designated to be transferred to others. Therefore, in a case where the transfer does not apply, the property should return to the possession of the one who owns the property itself, namely the giver and his heirs.


###### Bava Batra 136b:11
[Bava Batra 136b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/136b:11)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: כְּבָר תַּרְגְּמַהּ רַב הוֹשַׁעְיָא בְּבָבֶל: ״אַחֲרֶיךָ״ שָׁאנֵי. וְכֵן רָמֵי רַבָּה בַּר רַב הוּנָא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב, וְאָמַר: ״אַחֲרֶיךָ״ שָׁאנֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Reish Lakish **said to him: Rav Hoshaya already interpreted in Babylonia** that a case of **after you,** i.e., where the owner said to the recipient: After you die so-and-so will inherit the property, **is different,** as the giver intended to grant full ownership of the property to the first recipient as well, including both the rights to the produce and the property itself. **And Rabba bar Rav Huna also raised** this **contradiction before Rav, and** Rav **said** in response: **After you, is different.**


###### Bava Batra 136b:12
[Bava Batra 136b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/136b:12)

וְהָתַנְיָא: יַחְזְרוּ לְיוֹרְשֵׁי נוֹתֵן!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But isn’t it taught** in another *baraita* that if the second designated recipient dies before the first, after the death of the first the property **returns to the heirs of the giver?**