Study Bava Batra folio 107A with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
The Talmud answers: The cases cannot be compared because there, in the case of the sale of grain, the rabbis instituted a matter that is suitable for the seller and also suitable for the buyer. Since the price of grain fluctuates, neither party wants the sale to be considered complete until the last se’a is measured out, so that they each are able to renege on the sale should the price rise or fall. This reasoning does not apply in cases of division of property.
איתמר: אחין שחלקו, ובא בעל חוב ונטל חלקו של אחד מהן; רב אמר: בטלה מחלוקת. ושמואל אמר: ויתר. ורב אסי אמר: נוטל רביע בקרקע ורביע במעות.
§ It was stated that the amora’im disagreed about another related matter: If two brothers divided their father’s estate between them, and then their father’s creditor came and took the portion of one of them as repayment for the father’s debt, Rav says: The original division of the property is void, and the brothers must now redivide the remaining assets. Shmuel says: Each brother, upon receiving his portion, has foregone his right to be reimbursed if his portion is lost. Rav Asi says: The brother whose portion was seized is entitled to half the remaining inheritance: He takes 1/4th in land and 1/4th in money.
רב אמר: בטלה מחלוקת – קא סבר: האחין שחלקו, יורשין הן.
The Talmud explains the rationale for each opinion: Rav says that the original division of the property is void. This is because he holds that brothers who divided property received as an inheritance are still considered to be heirs with regard to the inheritance as if they never divided the property, so that they continue to share joint responsibility for their father’s debts. Therefore, if a creditor seizes the portion received by one of them, it is as if he repaid the debt on behalf of all the heirs. Accordingly, they must once again divide the remaining property between them.