R. Yochanan and Reish Lakish are consistent with what they taught elsewhere.

(R. Yochanan): If one sold his field at a time when Yovel applies, the buyer brings Bikurim and recites the declaration;

(Reish Lakish): The buyer brings Bikurim but does not recite.

R. Yochanan says that he brings and recites, for Kinyan Peros is like Kinyan ha'Guf.

Reish Lakish says, he brings but does not recite, for Kinyan Peros is not k'Kinyan ha'Guf.

They needed to argue in both of these cases:

Had they argued only in the previous case, one might have thought that only then Reish Lakish says that he is not like an owner, for he intended to buy only the Peros. Here, he intended to buy the land itself!

Had they argued only about Yovel, one might have thought that only here R. Yochanan says that he is like an owner, for he intended to buy the field itself. There, he intended to buy only the Peros!

Support (for R. Yochanan - Beraisa): If one bought a tree and its land, he brings Bikurim and recites.

Rejection #1: The Beraisa discusses a time when Yovel does not apply.

Support (for R. Yochanan - Beraisa): If Reuven bought two trees in Shimon's land, Reuven brings Bikurim and does not recite.

Had he bought three trees, he would recite!

Rejection #1: Also this Beraisa discusses a time when Yovel does not apply.

(Rav Chisda): R. Yochanan and Reish Lakish argue only about from the second Yovel onwards. All agree about the first Yovel that the buyer brings and recites, since sellers were not confident of getting back their fields.

Rejection #2 (of both supports): The Beraisos discuss the first Yovel.

Suggestion: R. Yochanan and Reish Lakish argue as these Tana'im.

(Beraisa - R. Yehudah and R. Shimon): If Reuven bought his father's field and made it Hekdesh and his father died, it is considered like an inherited field. "The field he bought, which is not an inheritance (is not considered an inherited field)" refers to a field that could not be an inheritance;

It excludes this case, in which Reuven bought a field that he could have inherited.

R. Meir says, if Reuven bought his father's field and his father died, and Reuven was Makdish the field, it is considered as an inherited field. "The field he bought, which is not an inheritance" refers to a field that was not an inheritance;

It excludes our case, in which the field was Reuven's inheritance.

R. Yehudah and R. Shimon do not need a verse to teach this case.

Suggestion: R. Meir holds that Kinyan Peros is k'Kinyan ha'Guf. When the father died, it is as if the son did not inherit anything. Therefore, the verse includes this case (the son was Makdish the field after his father died) like an inherited field;

R. Yehudah and R. Shimon hold that Kinyan Peros Lav k'Kinyan ha'Guf. When the father died, the son inherits. Therefore, the verse is not needed for this case. Rather, it includes when the son made the field Hekdesh before the father died.

Rejection (Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak): Really, even R. Yehudah and R. Shimon normally hold that Kinyan Peros is k'Kinyan ha'Guf. Here is an exception, because they expound the verse.

It should have said 'the field he bought that is not his inheritance.' Rather, it says "that is not from his inheritance" to teach that it was not even a potential inheritance.

If a son bought his father's field, the field could have been an inheritance.

(Rav Yosef): Had R. Yochanan not said that Kinyan Peros k'Kinyan ha'Guf, he would be unable to defend another of his teachings.

(R. Asi citing R. Yochanan): Brothers who divide an inheritance are like buyers. In Yovel, they return their portions to each other.

If Kinyan Peros were unlike Kinyan ha'Guf, the only case of one who could bring Bikurim and recite ("the land that You gave to me") would be one who inherited a field never split among heirs. I.e., from the time a Yisrael received the field in the days of Yehoshua, the owner always left exactly one heir!

(Rava): A verse and a Beraisa support Reish Lakish.

The verse is "the number of years of crops he will sell to you." (This implies that when Yovel applies, only the Peros are sold.)

(Beraisa): A firstborn receives a double portion in a field that returns to his father in Yovel. (This implies that the field itself belonged to the father, even though it was sold.)

(Abaye): A husband needs a Harsha'ah (power of attorney) in order to make claims in Beis Din about his wife's property (even though he owns the Peros).

This applies only if the Peros are not being contested. If they are contested, since he may claim about the Peros, he may also make claims about the property itself (without a Harsha'ah).

(Mishnah): All the following laws are for Tikun ha'Olam. When a debt is collected from land, the quality of land collected varies according to the source of the debt:

Damages are collected from Idis (highest quality land);

A lender collects from Beinonis (middle quality land);

A Kesuvah is collected from Ziburis (lowest quality land);

R. Meir says, also a Kesuvah is collected from Beinonis.

A debt is not collected from Meshubadim (i.e. property that was sold to someone else) if the debtor has Bnei Chorin (property that he did not sell), even if it is Ziburis.

Only Ziburis is collected from orphans.

The following are not collected from Meshubadim:

Compensation for Peros (if Reuven bought a field from Shimon, and really it was Levi's, Levi takes back the field with any Peros that are on it, and Reuven collects their value from Shimon);

Compensation for improvements (in the above case, Reuven is compensated for improvements he made to the field);

The food that a widow and (orphaned) daughters receive from the deceased's estate.

One who finds an Aveidah (lost item) need not swear.

(Gemara) Question: The first law is not only for Tikun ha'Olam! It says "from the best of his field and vineyard he will pay"!

Answer #1 (Abaye): The Mishnah is like R. Yishmael, who says that mid'Oraisa, he pays land no worse than the Idis (best quality land) of the victim. For Tikun ha'Olam, the damager pays with his own Idis.

(Beraisa - R. Yishmael): "From the best of his field and vineyard he will pay" refers to the best field and vineyard of the victim;

R. Akiva says, the verse teaches only that damages are collected from Idis, and all the more so regarding Hekdesh.

Question: Does R. Yishmael obligate one to pay Idis whether his animal ate Peros of Idis or Ziburis?!

Answer #1 (Rav Ada bar Avin): The case is, the animal ate a patch among many patches, and we do not know if it ate a good patch or a bad patch.

Objection (Rava): If we would know that it ate a bad patch, he would pay for a bad patch. Now that we are unsure, must he pay for a good patch?! One who seeks to collect must prove that he is entitled to collect!

Answer #2 (Rav Acha bar Yakov): The case is, the Idis of the victim was like the Ziburis of the damager.