Question: According to the opinion in the Gemara that they are in the Chazakah of the wife's heirs, why wasn't this mentioned with property that enters and leaves with her?

And according to the opinion that they are in the Chazakah of the husband's heirs, why wasn't this taught with the Kesuvah?

Answer: We can say that it is because there are different reasons for them, like I explained below (Sof DH Nechasim).

Question (R. Tam): Why is here different, that it says "the property is in its Chazakah", and the Gemara explains in the Chazakah of heirs of the woman...

And the Seifa teaches "if a house fell on him and his mother, both of them agree that they divide." What is the reason? It should say also there "the property is in its Chazakah", i.e. the Chazakah of heirs of the mother, like the Gemara explains!

Answer #1 (R. Tam): This Tana holds that a husband inherits [his wife only] mid'Rabanan. Therefore, it is only in the Chazakah of the wife's heirs.

Answer #2: Even if the Tana held [that a husband inherits] mid'Oraisa, we can distinguish and say that since a husband does not inherit due to kinship, it is in her Chazakah.

Distinction: However, when a house fell on him and his mother, [the property] is also in the son's Chazakah, due to kinship.

Question (against Answer #1 - R. Elchanan): Below (158b), R. Akiva is in the Mishnah of a house that fell on him and his mother [and contrasts it to the Reisha, when it fell on him and his wife. I.e. he agrees that in the Reisha, Beis Hillel say that they do not divide.] R. Akiva holds that a husband inherits mid'Oraisa, above (111b) and in Bava Kama (42b)! (According to Answer #1, all should agree in the Reisha that they divide.)

Answer: We can say that the Reisha [of that Mishnah], i.e. a house that fell on him and his mother, R. Akiva did not teach about it.

Implied question: If so, why did he say "I agree..."? (R. Akiva disagrees with them! We must say that R. Akiva taught the Reisha, that Beis Hillel agree, and for parallel structure, R. Akiva said "I agree", even though he argues!)

Answer: He means that even if [Beis Hillel] hold like Beis Shamai [I hold that they divide], but in any case, he (R. Akiva) did not teach the Reisha.

Question (against Answer #2 - R. Elchanan): According to the reason that it is due to kinship, why is it in more in the Chazakah of the son than in the Chazakah of other heirs of the mother? They come due to kinship just like these!

Answer #3 (to Question (a) - Ri): Regarding a husband, we consider that the wife is more Muchzak, because just like it is normal for a wife to die before her husband, it is normal for a husband to die before his wife, and he will not inherit her. This is not a punishment. Therefore, he does not have so much Semichas Da'as (he is not expecting so much to inherit her. Ayalah Sheluchah - the next line of Tosfos connotes that Chachamim enacted what to do in these cases of Safek. They gave it to the party that has more Semichas Da'as.)

However, regarding a son and his mother, if he dies before his mother, this is a punishment. Therefore, they enacted here when it falls on him and his mother that it is in his Chazakah, for he is destined to inherit his mother more than a husband is destined to inherit his wife.

Question (Ri): According to the opinion in the Gemara that [the property] is in the Chazakah of the husband's heirs, why do we need the reason of their Chazakah?

[Even without this, we should know that] it cannot be in the Chazakah of the wife's heirs, for she needs to swear about her Kesuvah (that she was not already paid, in order to collect it), and one does not bequeath a Shevu'ah to his children (or other heirs), like Rav and Shmuel taught in Shevuos (48a), and we hold like them!

Observation: Granted, according to Beis Shamai who say that they divide, for half is in the Chazakah of the woman's heirs, we cannot ask at all that one does not bequeath a Shevu'ah to his children, for Beis Shamai hold that anything destined to be collected, it is as if it was collected;

It is as if [her heirs] are Muchzak in the money, and then one bequeaths a Shevu'ah to his children, like we say in Shevuos (48b). for Beis Shamai hold that anything destined to be collected, it is as if it was collected;

Observation: Also, according to R. Elazar, who says in the Chazakah of the woman's heirs, we cannot ask anything, for he holds in Shevuos (48a) that one bequeaths a Shevu'ah to his children, and he argues with Rav and Shmuel.

Summation of question: However, R. Yochanan here, presumably he does not argue with Rav and Shmuel there!

Answer #1: We can say that the case is, [her husband] exempted her [and her heirs] from the Shevu'ah.

Disclaimer: [The Gemara] connotes unlike this.

Answer #2: Hi ha'Nosenes (this is the reason for that)! Because the property is in the husband's Chazakah, and not in the Chazakah of her heirs, she cannot bequeath a Shevu'ah to her children, and her heirs do not receive anything;

However, if the property were in her heir's Chazakah, then we would say that they get everything, for since they are Muchzak in the money, a Shevu'ah like this she can bequeath to her children, just like money, and we do not say that one cannot bequeath a Shevu'ah to his children.

Source: Also according to Beis Shamai, since she is Muchzak in the money due to "everything destined to be collected...", we do not say that one cannot bequeath a Shevu'ah to his children.

Suggestion - Answer #3: The case is, he designated land for her [Kesuvah] land and delineated its four borders. She is exempt from a Shevu'ah, like we say in Kesuvos (55a).

Rejection: If so, when [the Gemara] asks from several Mishnayos in Shevuos (48a), and it asks also from a Beraisa that it establishes like Beis Shamai, it should answer that the case is, he designated for her land and delineated its four borders. She is exempt from a Shevu'ah, like we say in Kesuvos (55a). This is from my Rebbi.

Answer #4 (R. Shimshon): The reason that one cannot bequeath a Shevu'ah to his children does not apply here, since a Shevu'ah is needed only because we are concerned lest he deposited Tzerari for her (coins, to ensure that she will be able to collect her Kesuvah);

This is when he went overseas. Then he deposits Tzerari with her. However, when [a house] fell on him suddenly, we are not concerned lest he deposited Tzerari.

Rebuttal (Ri): Why should we not be concerned for Tzerari in his lifetime, like we say in Kesuvos (96a) that if a widow seized Metaltelim for her food, what she seized, she seized?

We say that this is for her food, but [if she seized] for her Kesuvah, we take [back] from her. The case is, she seized in his lifetime, for we say that seizure after death does nothing. Why shouldn't we be concerned for a deposit [of Tzerari] in his lifetime?

Also, we say in Gitin (35a) that Rav did not collect a Kesuvah for a widow, for he was concerned for Tzerari. (R. Akiva Eiger asks why Tosfos cited Rav. Mishnayos teach that a widow must swear to collect! Chidushei ha'Gri (Kantrowitz) answers that Tosfos proves from Rav that we are concerned for seizure in his lifetime, for this is common; Rav discusses even when he died suddenly.)

Citation (Yevamos 38a, Kesuvos 80b - Mishnah): If [a Yevamah] died, what do we do with the Kesuvah, and property that enters and leaves with her?

Citation (cont.): Beis Shamai say, the husband's heirs divide with the father's heirs. Beis Hillel say, the property is in its Chazakah;

Explanation #1 (Rashi, there): Just like Amora'im argue here in the Gemara, they argue there. Each explains "in its Chazakah" according to his opinion.

Rebuttal #1 (R. Tam): The Mishnah there is totally unlike here. There, Beis Shamai argue only about Nichsei Melug, but not about the Kesuvah, like the Gemara infers there;

Since it says "the husband's heirs with the father's heirs", if so, the father's heirs are Vadai (Muchzak. The Chidush is that the husband's heirs divide with them.) This refers to Nichsei Melug. However, Beis Shamai agree with Beis Hillel about the Kesuvah (it stays in its Chazakah);

Whereas here, Beis Shamai argue even about the Kesuvah, since they taught Stam "they divide", and did not teach "with the father's heirs", like there;

The reason is because here is totally unlike there. Here, surely the husband's heirs do not have [more] power, for once he died, it is as if she already collected her Kesuvah. It is a Safek, for perhaps she died first. Therefore, they divide;

However, there, when the husband died, the Yavam stands in place of him, and she is Zekukah (must do Yibum or Chalitzah) to him, she is not like one who collected her Kesuvah, for she does not collect anything until after Chalitzah;

Therefore, the husband's heirs have power, and all agree that his property is in the Chazakah of the husband's heirs. They argue only about Nichsei Melug;

They do not [argue] about the Kesuvah and Nichsei Tzon Barzel, for the Kesuvah could not be collected in his lifetime.

Distinction: However, here they hold that they divide, because a document destined to be collected, it is as if it was collected. Therefore, we do not distinguish between Nichsei Tzon Barzel and the Kesuvah.

Rebuttal #2 (R. Tam): You are forced to say that there they do not argue about whose Chazakah they are in, like here, for if so, it is difficult for the opinion here that they are in the Chazakah of the wife's heirs;

If so, also there Nichsei Tzon Barzel are more in the Chazakah of the wife's heirs according to Beis Shamai, who do not argue about this, and regarding Nichsei Melug [Beis Shamai say that] they divide;

Consequence: If so, Nichsei Tzon Barzel are more in the Chazakah of the wife than Nichsei Melug. Just the contrary! They are more in the Chazakah of the husband than Nichsei Melug!

Source: A Mishnah (Yevamos 66a) says that [if a Bas Yisrael married a Kohen,] an Eved [Kena'ani] of Tzon Barzel eats Terumah, but an Eved of Nichsei Melug may not eat Terumah. This shows that Nichsei Tzon Barzel are more Muchzak to the husband than Nichsei Melug;

If so, how can one say that for Melug [property], the husband's heirs divide, and for Tzon Barzel, they are totally in the Chazakah of the wife's heirs?!

Implied question: According to what I explained, that there the property is in the Chazakah of the husband's heirs, why weren't they taught together - Nechasim and the Kesuvah are in the Chazakah of the husband's heirs?

Similarly, according to the opinion in the Gemara [here] that the property is in the Chazakah of the husband's heirs, why weren't they taught together - Nechasim and the Kesuvah are in the Chazakah of the husband's heirs? (Tosfos asked this above in DH Nafal, and briefly cited his answer here.)

Answer: We can say that they are for different reasons. Tzon Barzel are not so much in the Chazakah of the husband's heirs like the Kesuvah is, because she brought Nichsei Tzon Barzel from her house;

However, he gives the Kesuvah of 100 [for a widow] or 200 [for a Besulah], and even when she is not Zekukah l'Yavam, the Kesuvah is in the Chazakah of the husband's heirs.

And according to the opinion in the Gemara [here] that it is in the Chazakah of the wife's heirs, it is not applicable to teach it together with Nichsei Melug (which our Mishnah calls property that enters and leaves with her), for they are not totally for the same reason. These are more in the Chazakah of the husband, and these are [more] in the Chazakah of the wife, like I explained above. This is from my Rebbi.

Question (to the Rashbam): Why do they divide? We should say that the mother's heirs are Vadai in his one share (that he inherits from his mother if she died first) when she has other sons, and [the heir of] this son is a Safek, for perhaps he died before his mother;

This is a case of Safek and Vadai, and a Safek does not take from Vadai, like it says in Yevamos (38a);

Citation (Yevamos 38a): (If Yibum was done less than three months after death, and a boy was born more than six months later, within nine months of death, it is a Safek whether he is the son of the Mes, or of the Yavam.) If the Safek and Yavam come to divide the property of the grandfather (the father of the Mes and the Yavam), the Safek says "I am the son of the Mes. I receive half", and the Yavam says "you are my son. You do not receive anything"...

Citation (cont.): The Yavam is a Vadai [heir], and the Safek is a Safek [whether he inherits at all], and a Safek does not take from a Vadai.

Rashi explained there that the Yavam is called Vadai because he surely inherits [at least] half, so he should be [considered] Vadai in all the property. If so, why don't we say so also here?

Answer #1 (Rashbam): Here we discuss when the mother has no other sons. Rather, the mother's heirs are her brothers. If her son died after her (he inherited her when she died), they (her brothers) get nothing. Therefore, they are Safek, just like these (the son's heirs).

Rebuttal #1 (Ri, R. Tam, Riva): Even if she has [other] sons, we should not consider this Safek (how much her other sons inherit) to be Vadai (they inherit everything)!

Source: Below (159b), regarding (our Mishnah, 157a) a house that fell on him and his father, and there was a Kesuvah against him and he owed a creditor... [it says] 'is it not the case that "the father's heirs" are sons, and "those who bequeath to him" are brothers', and the Rashbam explained that the father's heirs are the son's brothers;

Inference: Even though the father has other sons, we do not say that a Safek is Vadai (inherits everything). We do not consider [a Safek] Vadai in all the property because he is Vadai in one part!

Rebuttal #2 (Tosfos' Rebbi): A Mishnah (Bava Metzi'a 2a says that if two are arguing about a Talis, and) one says "it is all mine", and the other says "it is half mine", the one who says "it is half mine" swears that he does not own less than a quarter, and receives [a quarter], and the one who says "it is all mine" swears that he does not own less than three quarters, and receives [three quarters];

Why don't we say that it is all his, since he is Vadai in this half? He should take everything, for this is [a case of] Safek and Vadai, and Safek does not take from Vadai!

Rebuttal #3 (Ri): It says above (107a) that two brothers who divided, and a creditor came and took the portion of one of them... Rav Asi said, [that brother] receives [from his brother] a quarter [of the value of what was taken] in land [or] a quarter in money;

We conclude that he is unsure whether [brothers who divide] are like buyers without Achrayus;

Explanation: If [brothers] are like heirs, then [brothers whose portions were taken] go to [the other] brothers [for compensation]. If they are like buyers without Achrayus, they do not go to [the other] brothers [for compensation]. Therefore, they get a quarter. (If they Vadai get compensation, it would be half, for then all brothers pay the debt equally. Since it is a Safek, he gets half of this.)

Why do they receive? Their brothers are Vadai in half, and these [brothers, whose portions were taken] are Safek in their portions, and Safek does not take from Vadai!

Rebuttal #4: This is a law without a reason. Because he is Vadai in this part, is he Vadai in another part?!

Answer #2 (Ri, Riva): Here (a house fell on him and his mother) we discuss when the mother has other sons. The Yavam is called Vadai because he Vadai inherits the grandfather, but the Safek does not Vadai inherit the grandfather;

However, here these are Safek, just like these, in the portion proper for the son. Here, the law of Safek and Vadai (Safek does not take from Vadai) does not apply at all.

Explanation #1 (Rashi in Bava Metzi'a 37b): R. Akiva was Shemuti, from Talmidim of Beis Shamai.

Rejection #1: The Halachah follows [R. Akiva] against his colleague (and we follow Beis Hillel against Beis Shamai)!

Rejection #2: In Yevamos (16a), R. Akiva argues against Beis Shamai about Tzaras ha'Bas (if a girl fell to her father to Yibum, Beis Hillel and Beis Shamai argue about whether or not Yibum and Chalitzah apply to her co-wives)!

Rejection #3: Why did [Ben Azai] say to him "you come to make an argument where they agree"? Since Beis Shamai (who said that they divide in the previous Mishnah) say that the property is in its Chazakah, all the more so Beis Hillel (who said so in the previous Mishnah, say so here)!

Explanation #2: "I agree about this" - according to the opinion in the Gemara that explains [here] in the Chazakah of the mother's heirs, [this means that] I agree here, even though I hold like Beis Hillel, that the Kesuvah is in the Chazakah of the husband's heirs, [here the property] is in the Chazakah of the mother's heirs;

And according to the one who says in the Chazakah of the son's heirs, [he explains] "I agree here", even though Nichsei Melug are in the Chazakah of the wife's heirs, here I agree that [the property] is in the Chazakah of the son's heirs.

Implied question: When a house fell on him and his wife, why don't we say that [her property is] in the Chazakah of the wife's heirs, for this reason (it is Huchzak in her Shevet)?

Answer: Since she entered [the property] to him if it decreases, he bears the loss. If it increases, he profits. It is as if he is Muchzak.

Remark: According to the opinion that it is in the Chazakah of the wife's heirs, since she will take it when she leaves [him], and also she entered it, it is in her Chazakah. This is from my Rebbi.

Explanation: [The buyers] did not buy anything from his father, and [the property] is not in their Chazakah.