GEMARA: The mishna teaches that according to Beit Hillel, the guaranteed property that the wife brought with her to the marriage retains its previous ownership status. The Gemara asks: In whose possession does the guaranteed property remain? Rabbi Yoḥanan says: It remains in the possession of the husband’s heirs, since the husband is liable to compensate his wife for guaranteed property in the event of loss. And Rabbi Elazar says: It remains in the possession of the wife’s heirs, as the property came from her father’s house and belongs to her.

And Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says in the name of bar Kappara: They divide the property between them. And likewise bar Kappara teaches in a baraita: Since these heirs come to inherit and those heirs come to inherit, and neither can prove his claim, they divide the property between them.

MISHNA: If the house collapsed on a son and upon his mother, and it is unknown who died first, the following claims arise: The mother’s paternal family claims that the son died first, and therefore they inherit from the mother, and the son’s heirs claim that the mother died first and her son inherited from her, and therefore they inherit from the son. In this case, both these Sages and those Sages, Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel, concede that they divide the property between them. 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 with regard to the case where they agree?

GEMARA: The mishna states that according to Rabbi Akiva, the property retains its previous ownership status. The Gemara asks: In whose possession does the property remain? Rabbi Ila says: It remains in the possession of the mother’s heirs. Rabbi Zeira, when he was still in Babylonia, said: It remains in the possession of the son’s heirs. When Rabbi Zeira ascended to Eretz Yisrael, he adopted the opinion of Rabbi Ila, whereas Rabba, in Babylonia, adopted the opinion stated by Rabbi Zeira. Rabbi Zeira said: Conclude from this incident that the air of Eretz Yisrael makes one wise, as when I ascended to Eretz Yisrael I accepted the opinion of Rabbi Ila, who was also from Eretz Yisrael, whereas Rabba, who remained in Babylonia, accepted my former opinion.

The Gemara asks: And what is the reason that the property remains in the possession of the mother’s heirs? Abaye says: Since the inheritance was initially in the possession of that tribe of the mother, it is not removed from their possession in order to transfer it to the son’s heirs, who are from a different tribe.

The mishna teaches: 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 with regard to the case where they agree? Rabbi Shamlai said: That is to say that ben Azzai was a disciple-colleague of Rabbi Akiva and not just a disciple, since he said to him: Do you come, in the second person, rather than using the more formal third person.

§ The Sages sent a ruling from there, Eretz Yisrael: With regard to a son who borrowed money based on the security of his father’s property during his father’s lifetime, and whose father subsequently died, his son repossesses the property from the buyers. And this is the most difficult halakha to understand with regard to monetary law. The Gemara clarifies the ruling: If the son borrowed, what does he repossess? He needs to repay a debt, not to collect payment. Moreover, what is the relevance of the buyers in this matter? There is no mention of them in the premise. Rather, if this matter was stated, it is in this manner