Bava Batra 158b — the Talmud in English

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna that, according to Beit Hillel, the iron-flock assets are in their presumptive possession.

And the Gemara asks:

In whose presumptive possession?

Rabbi Yohanan said: In the presumptive possession of the husband’s heirs.

Since they are acquired by him until the time of the divorce, he therefore has presumptive possession of them, and his heirs receive them.

Rabbi Elazar said: In the presumptive possession of the woman’s heirs.

Since, in practice, she brought the assets, and he receives them on the condition of returning them.

And Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said in the name of Bar Kappara: They shall divide.

And so Bar Kappara taught—

since these come to inherit,

the husband’s heirs, for they are acquired by him in the meantime,

and these come to inherit,

the woman’s heirs, for she brought them from her father’s house; therefore, because of the uncertainty,

they shall divide.

Mishna:

The house fell upon him and upon his mother,

upon Rachel, Jacob’s wife, and upon her son Joseph,

the son’s heirs, who are his brothers through Jacob, such as Reuben, Joseph’s brother, say: The mother, Rachel, died first, and Joseph inherited her; therefore, they inherit Joseph.

And Rachel’s heirs say: Joseph died first, and did not inherit his mother; therefore, they inherit her—

both these and those,

Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel, who disagreed in the preceding Mishna, here

agree that they shall divide

because of the uncertainty.

Rabbi Akiva said [

he disagrees with the first tanna]:

I agree in this case that the assets are in their presumptive possession.

That is, Beit Hillel also disagree in our Mishna, and maintain that the assets are in their presumptive possession, as the Gemara will explain who has presumptive possession of them.

Ben Azzai said to him: We are distressed over the disagreements,

we are distressed that in the preceding Mishna Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagreed,

but you have come to create disagreement among us over those who are equal,

and you add a disagreement concerning that which your colleagues say is equal.

Gemara:

The Gemara asks: According to Beit Hillel, who maintain that the assets are “in their presumptive possession,”

in whose presumptive possession

are the assets?

Rabbi Ila said: In the presumptive possession of the mother’s heirs,

Rabbi Zeira said: In the presumptive possession of the son’s heirs.

As will be explained below.

When Rabbi Zeira went up,

when he went up to the Land of Israel,

he adopted the position of Rabbi Ila,

he acknowledged Rabbi Ila’s words, that they are in the presumptive possession of the mother’s heirs.

Rabbi Zeira said: Learn from this that the air of the Land of Israel makes one wise.

The air of the Land of Israel made him wise, and therefore he grasped the truth of the matter and acknowledged Rabbi Ila’s words.

And the Gemara explains:

and what is the reason,

what is his reasoning that they are in the presumptive possession of the mother’s heirs?—

since

an inheritance was established as belonging to that tribe

of the mother, they therefore leave it in the presumptive possession of the mother’s heirs, for she is associated with her father’s tribe.

We learned in the Mishna:

And Ben Azzai said to him, “We are distressed over the disagreements,” etc.:

Rabbi Simlai said: This teaches,

from here we learn that

Ben Azzai was a student-colleague of Rabbi Akiva.

He was his student and also Rabbi Akiva’s colleague,

as he said to him

in the second person,

“you have come,”

because he addressed him in the second person, which is the language of a colleague.

And now the Gemara discusses what was known: there was a single law concerning monetary matters that they sent from the Land of Israel to Babylonia, and there was an objection against it, yet despite this they rule according to it as halakha. And the Gemara discusses what that law was that they sent from there, and what difficulty there is against it.

They sent from there: A son who borrowed against his father’s assets,

a son who pledged his father’s assets as guarantors for his loan,

during his father’s lifetime, and died

the son during his father’s lifetime, and afterward his father died,

his son removes them from the purchasers.

His son, who is the grandson, removes the assets from the purchasers.

And this is

the halakha

that is difficult in monetary matters.

But the Gemara rejects this, saying that this halakha is not correct, and is certainly corrupted, and was not stated in this manner, for:

He borrowed—what does he remove!?

How and why does the borrower remove from the purchasers to whom he or his father sold, merely because he borrowed!?

And furthermore, purchasers—

what is their involvement!?

For it was not mentioned at all at the outset that there were purchasers when the son borrowed during his father’s lifetime!?