Comentário sobre Baba Batra 9:10
נָפַל הַבַּיִת עָלָיו וְעַל אִמּוֹ, אֵלּוּ וָאֵלּוּ מוֹדִים שֶׁיַּחֲלֹקוּ. אָמַר רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, מוֹדֶה אֲנִי בָזֶה שֶׁהַנְּכָסִים בְּחֶזְקָתָן. אָמַר לוֹ בֶן עַזַּאי, עַל הַחֲלוּקִין אָנוּ מִצְטַעֲרִין, אֶלָּא שֶׁבָּאתָ לְחַלֵּק עָלֵינוּ אֶת הַשָּׁוִין:
Se a casa caísse sobre ele e sua mãe, [e ela não tem outro filho, a não ser este — Os herdeiros do filho dizem: "A mulher morreu primeiro, e o filho herdou sua propriedade, e nós herdamos o filho"; e os herdeiros da mulher, da casa de seu pai, dizem: "O filho morreu primeiro e nós herdamos a mulher"]—Ambos [Beth Shammai e Beth Hillel] concordam que eles se dividem. [Visto que ambos vêm com o poder da herança, é dúvida contra dúvida, e eles se dividem. E isso não é semelhante ao (exemplo) da casa que cai sobre ele e sua esposa. Por lá, existem dois tipos de propriedade—um no qual ele é o muchzak (o "detentor") e o outro, no qual ela é o muchzak. Mas aqui tudo está no chazakah da mulher, sendo, como ela é, uma viúva; e ambos (requerentes) vêm pelo poder da herança, para herdar tudo—por essa razão eles se dividem.] R. Akiva disse: Aqui também digo [de acordo com Beth Hillel] que a propriedade permanece em sua chazakah, [na chazakah de seus herdeiros de (a casa de) seu pai. Pois em sua vida, após a morte de seu marido, ela estava ligada à tribo de seu pai, e seu dinheiro também, durante sua vida, estava no chazakah da tribo de seu pai. Portanto, os herdeiros da casa de seu pai a herdam. A halachá está de acordo com R. Akiva.] Ben Azzai disse a ele: "Por causa dos 'diferentes', lamentamos, [isto é, pelo desacordo acima mencionado entre Beth Shammai e Beth Hillel, lamentamos que eles não pudessem concordar], e você vem dividir para nós os concorrentes! " [ie, você diz que nisto também eles discordam, diferindo nisto do punho tanna, que diz que (neste caso) eles concordam.]
Bartenura on Mishnah Bava Batra
English Explanation of Mishnah Bava Batra
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.