Bava Basra - Daf 158
- נפל הבית עליו ועל אשתו
The next Mishnah states: נפל הבית עליו ועל אשתו – The house collapsed on [someone] and his wife, killing them. The husband’s heirs claim the wife died first, and the husband inherited her properties, which they now inherit from him. The wife’s heirs claim the husband died first without inheriting her, and she additionally became entitled to her kesubah, all of which they should inherit from her. Beis Shammai says: יחלוקו – they divide the assets equally, since we cannot determine who should receive them. Beis Hillel says: נכסים בחזקתן – the properties, meaning her נכסי צאן ברזל, remain in their previously held possession. The kesubah, which the husband pays, is in the possession of the husband’s heirs, and the נכסי מלוג, which were the wife’s properties, are in the possession of the (wife’s) father’s heirs. Three interpretations are presented defining Beis Hillel’s ruling that נכסי צאן ברזל (which were initially the wife’s property, but the husband is fully responsible for them) remain in “their חזקה.” Rebbe Yochanan says they are in the husband’s heirs’ possession, Reish Lakish says they are in the wife’s heirs’ possession, and Bar Kappara says they are divided.
- נפל הבית עליו ועל אמו
The next Mishnah states: נפל הבית עליו ועל אמו – The house collapsed on [someone] and his (unmarried) mother, killing them. The mother’s heirs (e.g., her brothers) claim the son died first and did not inherit her assets, so they inherit her. The son’s heirs (e.g., his paternal brothers from another mother) claim the mother died first and the son inherited her, so they inherit her assets. The Tanna Kamma says: אלו ואלו מודין שיחלוקו – both [Beis Shammai] and [Beis Hillel] agree that [the groups] divide her assets equally. This case differs from the Mishnah on Daf 157a, where the two parties made different claims (one was claiming inheritance, while the other was collecting a debt), and from the Mishnah on amud alef, where the assets were considered previously in the possession of different people. Here, both parties are claiming the entire estate through inheritance, so they are divided. Rebbe Akiva disagrees, and says that even here, Beis Hillel holds נכסים בחזקתן – the assets remain in their previously held possession, which the Gemara will define. Ben Azzai said to him: על חלוקין אנו מצטערין – we are already pained by the disputed cases; אלא שבאת לחלק עלינו את השוין – but you are coming to dispute the unanimous rulings!?
- Defining the mother’s assets "בחזקתן", and אוירא דארץ ישראל מחכים
Rebbe Akiva said that where a mother and her only son died, and their respective heirs dispute who inherits the mother’s assets, Beis Hillel rules they remain "בחזקתן" – in their possession. The Gemara asks to whom this refers. Rebbe Illa said: בחזקת יורשי האם – in the possession of the mother’s heirs, as the Gemara will explain. Rebbe Zeira said: בחזקת יורשי הבן – in the possession of the son’s heirs, because the son stood to inherit his mother. When Rebbe Zeira went up to Eretz Yisroel, he changed his mind to rule like Rebbe Illa and commented: שמע מינה אוירא דארץ ישראל מחכים – we learn from this that the air of Eretz Yisroel makes one wise, because his immigrating to Eretz Yisroel caused him to reconsider his position and arrive at the truth. Abaye explains Rebbe Zeira’s conclusion: הואיל והוחזקה נחלה באותו שבט – because the estate was in the possession of that shevet of the mother during her lifetime. Since her heirs (i.e., her paternal brothers) are from her shevet, and her son’s heirs are from the husband’s shevet, the assets remain in her shevet’s possession and are taken by her heirs.
