Komentarz do Bawa batra 9:10

נפל הבית עליו ועל אמו – and she has no other son other than this one. The inheritors of the son say that the woman died first and the son inherited her property and we inherit the son. But the inheritors of the woman from the family of the house of her father state that the son died first and that we inherit the woman.

If the house fell down on a man and his mother, they (the Schools of Shammai and agree that the they split the property.
Rabbi Akiva said: “I agree here, that the property remains in its former status.” Ben Azzai said to him: “We already are distressed over those things upon which there is disagreement, and you are coming to bring disagreement on the points in which they agree.”
The final mishnah of chapter nine continuse to deal with the topic of doubtful inheritances in which it is unclear who died first, the inheritor or the one from whom he inherits.
In our mishnah a man and his mother (who was a widow) died in the same accident and it is unknown who died first. Furthermore, the man had no sons who would inherit him and the woman had no other sons to inherit from her. If the son died first then the mother’s other inheritors would receive her inheritance. If the mother died first then the son would inherit her and his inheritors would receive her (as well as his) inheritance. In such a case the School of Shammai and the School of Hillel agree that all of the inheritors split the property. Since they are all making claims based on inheritance and none of them had prior possession of the property such that we could say that the property reverts to its previous status (as was the School of Hillel’s opinion in previous mishnayoth), there is nothing left to do but split the property.
Rabbi Akiva believes that even in this case the property reverts to its previous status. According to Rabbi Akiva when this woman was originally widowed she reverted to being part of her father’s family (as opposed to her husband’s family). Therefore, when she died, the property is assumed to belong to the inheritors from her father’s side, regardless of whether they can prove that the son died first.
Ben Azzai responds to Rabbi Akiva that it is distressing enough that the Schools of Shammai and Hillel disagreed on so many issues. In Ben Azzai’s opinion Rabbi Akiva should not create a new dispute where previous scholars were in agreement.

אלו ואלו מודים [ – The School of Shammai and the School of Hillel [agree] that they should divide it. But this is not like the case where the house fell upon him and his wife. For in that case, there are two types of property. There is what the husband is in possession of and there is what the wife is in possession of, but here, everything is in the possession of the woman/wife since she was a widow. And both come from the power of inheritance to inherit everything. Therefore, it is divided.

מודה אני בזה – for according to the words of the School of Hillel, we say that is so that the property is left in the hands of the possessors, in the possession of her inheritors from the father’s side, for during her lifetime, once her husband died she is a connected through the tribe of her father. And her monies also during her lifetime are in the possession of her father’s tribe. Therefore, her inheritors from the father’s side inherit her, and the Halakha is according to Rabbi Akiba.

על חלוקין אנו מצטערין – meaning to say, on the disagreement above of the Schools of Shammai and Hillel. We are saddened that they didn’t come to agreement and you say that also with this they are divided. And you came to dispute on the first Tanna/teacher, that they are both equivalent.