Our Gemara on Amud Beis presents a well-known dispute between Rav Yochanan and Reish Lakish regarding the nature of property ownership. Specifically, they argue about whether a person who holds the rights to a property's produce, but does not own the land itself, is considered a landowner. This has various halachic implications, as certain obligations are triggered by land ownership:
Rabbi Yoḥanan holds that purchasing the rights to use land and profit from it equates to full ownership. In contrast, Reish Lakish argues that acquiring rights to the land’s profits is not akin to possessing the property itself.
The Sefer Ateres Yeshuah (Likkutim) interprets this disagreement as a reflection of a deeper theological issue. In rabbinic literature, the rewards one receives in this world for performing mitzvos are sometimes referred to as “the produce” of those mitzvos (see Mishnah Peah 1:1). Thus, Ateres Yeshuah suggests that the dispute between Rav Yochanan and Reish Lakish may also reflect a difference in their attitudes towards reward in this world versus reward in the World to Come.
Given Reish Lakish’s background as a former bandit who later became a penitent, he came to view the pleasures and rewards of this world as distractions, leading him to minimize their importance. For Reish Lakish, then, “rights to the produce” is comparable to mere temporary gain, rather than true acquisition of something substantial. In his view, worldly benefits are inconsequential compared to the eternal rewards of the World to Come. In contrast, Rav Yochanan, who did not have the same history of sin, felt more comfortable finding value in this world’s pleasures as means of engagement and enjoyment. He could see worldly gains as meaningful, with intrinsic value, leading him to consider this “produce” as a form of ownership, if not of the same degree as eternal ownership.
Building on Ateres Yeshuah’s idea, I would offer another interpretation that adds a new perspective, drawing on the Gemara in Succah (52a):
Rabbi Yehuda taught: In the future, at the end of days, God will bring forth the evil inclination and slaughter it in the presence of both the righteous and the wicked. To the righteous, the evil inclination appears as a towering mountain; to the wicked, it appears as a mere strand of hair. Both groups weep. The righteous weep and say, “How did we overcome such a high mountain?” while the wicked weep and say, “How did we fail to overcome such a thin strand of hair?” God marvels along with them, as the verse states: “So says the Lord of hosts: If it seems impossible to the remnant of this people, should it also be impossible in My eyes?” (Zechariah 8:6).
This passage suggests that the evil inclination is relative, its power fluctuating based on an individual’s perspective and life history. Reish Lakish, who had once succumbed to sin, later diminished the significance of worldly pleasure to the point where it became irrelevant to him—a mere “strand of hair.” By contrast, Rabbi Yochanan, who had always resisted sin, perceived worldly pleasures as imposing and substantial, akin to a mountain. For Rabbi Yochanan, the “produce” of this world carried significance, symbolizing a substantial claim on life’s rewards and, in a sense, “ownership.”
Rabbi Yochanan’s and Reish Lakish’s perspectives illuminate a profound truth about human experience: our perception of worldly enjoyment and the struggle with desire is deeply shaped by our spiritual paths. Rabbi Yochanan, who had consistently resisted temptation, viewed the temptations and pleasures of this world as weighty. Reish Lakish, however, having tasted and ultimately renounced sin, had developed a disdain for the fleeting rewards of this life, seeing them as inconsequential compared to the eternal reward he sought in the World to Come.
Translations Courtesy of Sefaria, except when, sometimes, I disagree with the translation 
Do you like what you see? Please subscribe and also forward any articles you enjoy to your friends, (enemies too, why not?)