Today’s daf continues to examine cases where two people die in quick succession, and it’s unknown who died first. In such cases, what do we do with their property, whose division will vary depending on the order of their deaths?
The first several mishnahs examining this question contained a dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel. In cases of uncertainty about the order of death, Beit Shammai says the two possible inheriting parties divide the property between them, whereas Beit Hillel says that the property retains the presumptive status it held before the two people died. Whoever would inherit according to that status inherits it all. But the second mishnah on today’s daf contains a twist:
If the house collapsed on (a son) and upon his mother, these sages and those sages (Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel) concede that they divide the property between them.
In this scenario, the two possible inheriting parties are the mother’s inheritors from her paternal family (like her brother) and the son’s heirs (i.e. her grandsons). If the son died first, then he inherited nothing and all of the mother’s property goes to her heirs in her paternal family. If the mother died first, the son inherited her property before he died, and thus his heirs would inherit it all from him.
Unlike in our previous mishnahs, here it seems that Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai agree that the property should be evenly divided. What makes this case different? Rashbam explains that in previous scenarios, there was one party whose claim was based on inheritance and another whose claim was based on loan contracts, or the property in question was previously held by different parties (i.e. some by the husband and some under the wife’s auspices). In those cases, Beit Hillel believes there is only one party who should rightfully inherit. But here, where all the property is initially owned by the mother and both parties’ claims are based on inheritance, the only differentiating factor is the order of death, which we cannot determine. In such a case, everyone would say we simply split the property.
But then Rabbi Akiva chimes in:
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 where they agree?
It’s important to note, as Rashbam does, that Rabbi Akiva is not disagreeing with Beit Hillel, but with the previous reporting of Beit Hillel’s position. Rabbi Akiva himself wouldn’t have the authority to disagree with a position held by both Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel. Still, he believes that even in this case, Beit Hillel would hold that the property retains its presumptive previous ownership and should not be split evenly. (The Gemara explains that the presumptive previous ownership status here refers to its belonging to the mother’s tribe, and therefore her inheritors from her paternal family would receive it all.)
In an entertaining commentary not found so commonly in the Talmud, Ben Azzai responds to Rabbi Akiva’s report of this tradition with exasperation. We’ve finally found a case where Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel agree, and you want to maintain that they disagree even here!?
While it’s satisfying when certain positions are held by all opinions, Rabbi Akiva is just sharing the tradition as he knows it. From what he has learned, Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai remain in dispute even here.
Read all of Bava Batra 158 on Sefaria.
This piece originally appeared in a My Jewish Learning Daf Yomi email newsletter sent on November 30, 2024. If you are interested in receiving the newsletter, sign up here.
Help us keep Jewish knowledge accessible to millions of people around the world.
Your donation to My Jewish Learning fuels endless journeys of Jewish discovery. With your help, My Jewish Learning can continue to provide nonstop opportunities for learning, connection and growth.
