Bava Batra 136B

אמר רבי יוחנן: לא קנה לוקח. וריש לקיש אמר: קנה לוקח.

R' Yoḥanan says: The purchaser did not acquire the property, and Reish Lakish says: The purchaser acquired the property.

רבי יוחנן אמר: לא קנה לוקח ⁠– קנין פירות כקנין הגוף דמי.

The Talmud explains their reasoning: R' 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.

וריש לקיש אמר: קנה לוקח ⁠– קנין פירות לאו כקנין הגוף דמי.

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.

והא איפליגו בה חדא זימנא! דאיתמר: המוכר שדהו לפירות ⁠– רבי יוחנן אמר: מביא וקורא. וריש לקיש אמר: מביא, ואינו קורא.

The Talmud 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, R' 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, YHWH, 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.