Responsa for Bava Batra 316:7
שלחו מתם בן שלוה בנכסי אביו בחיי אביו ומת בנו מוציא מיד הלקוחות וזו היא שקשה בדיני ממונות לוה מאי מפיק ועוד לקוחות מאי עבידתיה אלא אי איתמר הכי
has become the established possession of that tribe.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To which the mother belongs. Hence it must not be taken away from her heirs, who naturally belong to the same tribe, in favour of the son's heirs who may belong to another tribe and who would, consequently. alienate the property from the tribe the ownership of which had been established. ');"><sup>18</sup></span> BEN AZZAI SAID TO HIM: [IS IT NOT ENOUGH THAT] WE ARE SUFFERING FROM EXISTING DIVISIONS OF OPINIONS etc. R. Simlai said: This implies [that] Ben Azzai was disciple [and] colleague of R. Akiba [seeing] that he said to him, 'That you come'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And not, 'that our Master comes'. ');"><sup>19</sup></span> [The following statement] was sent from Palestine:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'there'. v. supra p. 687, n. 12. The statement is unintelligible and is explained in the Gemara infra. ');"><sup>20</sup></span> '[If] a son borrowed on [the security of] the estate of his father, during the lifetime of his father, and he died, his son may take away from the buyers; and this it is that presents a difficulty in civil law.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'laws of monies or money matters'. ');"><sup>21</sup></span> [If] he borrowed, [it may be asked.] what [is he to] take away? And, furthermore, what has he to do with buyers?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the statement no sale but a loan was mentioned! ');"><sup>22</sup></span> — But, if that statement was made, thus
Teshuvot Maharam
After protracted litigation, the widow (of Speyer) and her levirs finally came to court and chose their judges. These judges asked the opinion of R. Meir who put them off and advised them to ask the great (Jewish) leaders of the Kingdom (Germany) regarding the ordinances passed by the communities affecting the relations of a widow and her levirs. The leaders all agreed that after the rite of halitzah is performed, one half of the husband's estate belongs to the widow and one half to the levirs. R. Meir states that he knows no further details regarding these laws of the communities, and renders the following decision in accordance with talmudic law:
A. If A's widow, three months after his death refuses to undergo the rite of halitzah or marry her levir, she is to be considered as a rebellious wife and all of A's property is to be taken away from her, except that which she has brought in as a dowry, upon her marriage to A. If, however, she consents to undergo the rite of halitzah, she receives half of A's property, as is the Takkanah of the communities. From this amount is deducted the sum she admits, under oath, to have wasted, lost, and given away as presents, while A was alive and after his death.
SOURCES: Pr. 563; Mord. Yeb. 23. Cf. Terumat Hadeshen 220; Isserlein, Pesakim 262; ibid. 263; ibid. 264.