Bava Basra 136b
בבא בתרא קל״ו ע״ב
Bava Batra 136b
Learn Bava Basra 136b step by step: Aramaic beside English, every question, answer and proof colour-coded.
Open Bava Basra 136b in Gemara Clarity
Topic
Whether קנין פירות is like קנין הגוף: the dispute of רבי יוחנן and ריש לקיש, why it is recorded twice, and the challenge from a chain of recipients ('after you')
Overview
This amud continues the case of a father who wrote his property to his son but kept the right to its fruits for life. The son sold the land and then died before his father. רבי יוחנן says the buyer did not acquire it, and ריש לקיש says he did. Their disagreement is whether קנין פירות (owning the fruits) counts like קנין הגוף (owning the land itself). The גמרא asks why they needed to argue twice, since they already disagreed about someone who sold only the fruits of his field and whether the buyer reads the ביכורים verses. It answers that each side needed the father-and-son case to block a different mistaken idea. Then רבי יוחנן challenges ריש לקיש from a ברייתא about a chain of recipients: 'my property to you, and after you to so-and-so.' ריש לקיש answers that the wording 'after you' is different, as רב הושעיא and רב already said. Finally, the גמרא quotes a second ברייתא that rules the opposite way, and the discussion continues on the next amud.
Opening lines
אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: לֹא קָנָה לוֹקֵחַ.
Rabbi Yochanan says: The buyer did not acquire.
וְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר: קָנָה לוֹקֵחַ.
And Reish Lakish says: The buyer acquired.
רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: לֹא קָנָה לוֹקֵחַ –
Rabbi Yochanan says: The buyer did not acquire,
קִנְיַן פֵּירוֹת כְּקִנְיַן הַגּוּף דָּמֵי.
because ownership of the fruits is like ownership of the thing itself.
The steps (12)
- StatementDid the buyer acquire the land?
- Statementרבי יוחנן's reason: owning the fruits is like owning the land
- Statementריש לקיש's reason: owning the fruits is not like owning the land
- ChallengeDidn't they already argue about this?
- ProofThe earlier argument: selling the fruits of a field and ביכורים
- ChallengeThe earlier dispute rests on the very same principle
- ResolutionWhy רבי יוחנן needed the father-and-son case
- ResolutionWhy ריש לקיש needed the father-and-son case
- Challengeרבי יוחנן objects from a chain of inheritors
- ChallengeThe ending of the ברייתא and the challenge to ריש לקיש
- Resolutionריש לקיש answers that the wording 'after you' is different
- ChallengeA different ברייתא says the property goes back to the giver's heirs