Bava Batra 158
מַתְנִי׳ נָפַל הַבַּיִת עָלָיו וְעַל אִשְׁתּוֹ, יוֹרְשֵׁי הַבַּעַל אוֹמְרִים: אִשָּׁה מֵתָה רִאשׁוֹן, וְאַחַר כָּךְ מֵת הַבַּעַל; יוֹרְשֵׁי אִשָּׁה אוֹמְרִים: בַּעַל מֵת רִאשׁוֹן, וְאַחַר כָּךְ מֵתָה אִשָּׁה –
MISHNA: If the house collapsed upon a husband and upon his wife, and it is unknown who died first, if the wife did not have any children from her husband, then the following claims arise: The husband’s heirs say: The wife died first and was inherited by her husband, and afterward the husband died, and therefore the husband’s heirs inherit both his and her property. The wife’s heirs say: The husband died first and afterward the wife died, and her heirs inherit the property that she brought with her to the marriage and the payment of her marriage contract.
בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: יַחְלוֹקוּ. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: נְכָסִים – בְּחֶזְקָתָן, כְּתוּבָּה – בְּחֶזְקַת יוֹרְשֵׁי הַבַּעַל, נְכָסִים הַנִּכְנָסִין וְהַיּוֹצְאִין עִמָּהּ – בְּחֶזְקַת יוֹרְשֵׁי הָאָב.
Beit Shammai say: They divide the property under dispute between them. And Beit Hillel say: The guaranteed property that the wife brought with her to the marriage retains its previous ownership status. The sum of the marriage contract remains in the possession of the husband’s heirs, since the marriage contract is collected from the husband’s property. Property that is brought into and taken out of the marriage with her, i.e., usufruct property that remains in the wife’s possession during her marriage, remains in the possession of the heirs of the woman’s father.
גְּמָ׳ בְּחֶזְקַת מִי? רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: בְּחֶזְקַת יוֹרְשֵׁי הַבַּעַל, וְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אָמַר: בְּחֶזְקַת יוֹרְשֵׁי הָאִשָּׁה,
GEMARA: The mishna teaches that according to Beit Hillel, the guaranteed property that the wife brought with her to the marriage retains its previous ownership status. The Gemara asks: In whose possession does the guaranteed property remain? Rabbi Yoḥanan says: It remains in the possession of the husband’s heirs, since the husband is liable to compensate his wife for guaranteed property in the event of loss. And Rabbi Elazar says: It remains in the possession of the wife’s heirs, as the property came from her father’s house and belongs to her.
וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ מִשּׁוּם בַּר קַפָּרָא אָמַר: יַחְלוֹקוּ. וְכֵן תָּנֵי בַּר קַפָּרָא: הוֹאִיל וְהַלָּלוּ בָּאִין לִירַשׁ וְהַלָּלוּ בָּאִין לִירַשׁ, יַחְלוֹקוּ.
And Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says in the name of bar Kappara: They divide the property between them. And likewise bar Kappara teaches in a baraita: Since these heirs come to inherit and those heirs come to inherit, and neither can prove his claim, they divide the property between them.
מַתְנִי׳ נָפַל הַבַּיִת עָלָיו וְעַל אִמּוֹ, אֵלּוּ וָאֵלּוּ מוֹדִין שֶׁיַּחְלוֹקוּ. אָמַר רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא: מוֹדֶה אֲנִי בָּזוֹ, שֶׁהַנְּכָסִים בְּחֶזְקָתָן. אָמַר לוֹ בֶּן עַזַּאי: עַל [הַ]חֲלוּקִין אָנוּ מִצְטַעֲרִין; אֶלָּא שֶׁבָּאתָ לְחַלֵּק עָלֵינוּ אֶת הַשָּׁוִין?!
MISHNA: If the house collapsed on a son and upon his mother, and it is unknown who died first, the following claims arise: The mother’s paternal family claims that the son died first, and therefore they inherit from the mother, and the son’s heirs claim that the mother died first and her son inherited from her, and therefore they inherit from the son. In this case, both these Sages and those Sages, Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel, concede that they divide the property between them. Rabbi Akiva said: In this case I concede that the property retains its previous ownership status. Ben Azzai said to Rabbi Akiva: We are already troubled by those cases where Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel are in disagreement. But do you come to bring upon us a disagreement with regard to the case where they agree?
גְּמָ׳ בְּחֶזְקַת מִי? רַבִּי אִילָא אָמַר: בְּחֶזְקַת יוֹרְשֵׁי הָאֵם. רַבִּי זֵירָא אָמַר: בְּחֶזְקַת יוֹרְשֵׁי הַבֵּן. כִּי סָלֵיק רַבִּי זֵירָא, קָם בְּשִׁיטְתֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי אִילָא. קָם רַבָּה בְּשִׁיטְתֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי זֵירָא. אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ – אַוֵּירָא דְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל מַחְכִּים.
GEMARA: The mishna states that according to Rabbi Akiva, the property retains its previous ownership status. The Gemara asks: In whose possession does the property remain? Rabbi Ila says: It remains in the possession of the mother’s heirs. Rabbi Zeira, when he was still in Babylonia, said: It remains in the possession of the son’s heirs. When Rabbi Zeira ascended to Eretz Yisrael, he adopted the opinion of Rabbi Ila, whereas Rabba, in Babylonia, adopted the opinion stated by Rabbi Zeira. Rabbi Zeira said: Conclude from this incident that the air of Eretz Yisrael makes one wise, as when I ascended to Eretz Yisrael I accepted the opinion of Rabbi Ila, who was also from Eretz Yisrael, whereas Rabba, who remained in Babylonia, accepted my former opinion.
וְטַעְמָא מַאי? אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: הוֹאִיל וְהוּחְזְקָה נַחֲלָה בְּאוֹתוֹ שֵׁבֶט.
The Gemara asks: And what is the reason that the property remains in the possession of the mother’s heirs? Abaye says: Since the inheritance was initially in the possession of that tribe of the mother, it is not removed from their possession in order to transfer it to the son’s heirs, who are from a different tribe.
אָמַר לוֹ בֶּן עַזַּאי: עַל הַחֲלוּקִין אָנוּ מִצְטַעֲרִין וְכוּ׳. אָמַר רַבִּי שִׂמְלַאי, עֲדָא אָמְרָה – בֶּן עַזַּאי תַּלְמִיד חָבֵר דְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא הֲוָה, דְּקָאָמַר לֵיהּ ״שֶׁבָּאתָ״.
The mishna teaches: Ben Azzai said to Rabbi Akiva: We are already troubled by those cases where Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel are in disagreement. But do you come to bring upon us a disagreement with regard to the case where they agree? Rabbi Shamlai said: That is to say that ben Azzai was a disciple-colleague of Rabbi Akiva and not just a disciple, since he said to him: Do you come, in the second person, rather than using the more formal third person.
שְׁלַחוּ מִתָּם: בֵּן שֶׁלָּוָה בְּנִכְסֵי אָבִיו בְּחַיֵּי אָבִיו, וָמֵת – בְּנוֹ מוֹצִיא מִיַּד הַלָּקוֹחוֹת. וְזוֹ הִיא שֶׁקָּשָׁה בְּדִינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת. לָוָה – מַאי מַפֵּיק? וְעוֹד, לָקוֹחוֹת מַאי עֲבִידְתֵּיהּ? אֶלָּא אִי אִיתְּמַר, הָכִי
§ The Sages sent a ruling from there, Eretz Yisrael: With regard to a son who borrowed money based on the security of his father’s property during his father’s lifetime, and whose father subsequently died, his son repossesses the property from the buyers. And this is the most difficult halakha to understand with regard to monetary law. The Gemara clarifies the ruling: If the son borrowed, what does he repossess? He needs to repay a debt, not to collect payment. Moreover, what is the relevance of the buyers in this matter? There is no mention of them in the premise. Rather, if this matter was stated, it is in this manner
