In the Point by Point Outline your wrote:
>>(e) Support (for R. Yochanan - Beraisa): If one bought a tree and its land, he brings Bikurim and recites.
(f) Rejection #1: The Beraisa discusses a time when Yovel does not apply.
(g) Support (for R. Yochanan - Beraisa): If Reuven bought two trees in Shimon's land, Reuven brings Bikurim and does not recite.
1. Had he bought three trees, he would recite!
(h) Rejection #1: Also this Beraisa discusses a time when Yovel does not apply.<<
I do not understand how (f) and (h)reject the supports for R'Yochanan, when it seems, based on Rashi on the previous omud (d'h hamocher sadehu lperos), and the gemorrah at the top of the omud that the machlokes applied equally during yovel and not during yovel?
Daniel Rose, London, UK
(Please forgive the delay. Technical problems held up the mailing of a number of responses.)
1) There are two disputes between Rebbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish in this Sugya. The first dispute (on 47b) concerns someone who sells a field with the explicit condition that only the fruit should belong to the buyer, not the land itself. Rashi (DH ha'Mocher) that you cited explains that this must be referring to a time when Yovel did not apply, because during a period in history when Yovel did apply, a standard sale is anyway only of the fruit (even if no specific condition was made) because the land will return automatically in the Yovel to the original owners.
2) The second dispute between Rebbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish (end of 47b and top of 48a) states explicitly that this is referring to a period of history when Yovel applied. However, the scenario discussed is where a field was sold without it being stated that it was only the fruit that was sold. Reish Lakish maintains in this case the field is not considered to belong to the buyer because since Yovel applies this means that he has only sold the fruit, and Resh Lakish's opinion is that owning the fruit does not mean that one automatically owns the land.
3) The Gemara proceeds to cite two Beraisos to attempt to support Rebbi Yochanan and to contradict Reish Lakish. Both these Beraisos refer to someone who sold the land, not merely the fruit, and one sees in both cases that if one sells the land it is considered that the sale is indeed effective on the land, not merely on the fruit. Since the Gemara understood in its attempted proof that the period referred to is when Yovel applies, it follows that the Beraisos represent a challenge on Reish Lakish because at the beginning of 48a he maintained that when Yovel applies, even if one attempted to sell the land, the land is not sold.
4) The Gemara deflected the challenges on Reish Lakish and said that the two Beraisos are both referring to a period when Yovel did not apply. In such a period Reish Lakish agrees that the sale of the land is effective on the land itself, not just on the fruit, because at such a period it is possible to sell more than the fruit.
5) In summary, Rashi (47b DH ha'Mocher) writes that the period referred to, in the first dispute between Rebbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish, is when Yovel does not apply. The second dispute, at the end of 47b and beginning of 48a, refers to when Yovel does apply. The Gemara deflects the attempted challenges on Reish Lakish by asserting that the Beraisos refer to a time when Yovel does not apply.
Kol Tuv,
Dovid Bloom