In Sooth, it is Rabbi Akiva

In Bava Kamma 103b, an interesting position staked out by Tosafot. The gemara:

לְעוֹלָם רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא הִיא, וְכִי קָאָמַר רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא עַד שֶׁיְּשַׁלֵּם גְּזֵילָה לְכׇל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד – הֵיכָא דְּאִישְׁתְּבַע הוּא דְּקָאָמַר. מַאי טַעְמָא? דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״לַאֲשֶׁר הוּא לוֹ, יִתְּנֶנּוּ בְּיוֹם אַשְׁמָתוֹ״.

The Gemara answers: Actually, it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, and when Rabbi Akiva says that the robber is not considered to have returned the stolen item until he pays the value of the stolen item to each and every one of the five, it is only in a case where the robber took a false oath that Rabbi Akiva says this. What is the reason? As the verse states with regard to one who takes a false oath concerning a financial obligation: “Unto him to whom it appertains shall he give it, on the day of his being guilty” (Leviticus 5:24). The halakha that the guilty party must make a rigorous effort to return what he owes is stated in the case of one who took a false oath, and Rabbi Akiva would state his ruling only in that case.

Now, the general discourse structure of — (1) Let us say this aligns with person / position X; (2) No, that isn’t compelled, because we can explain how it still aligns with Y, who holds the opposite. — is somewhat common. Does this mean that we have a specific preference for ending up with Y? Perhaps, perhaps not. This is something to study comprehensively.

Tosafot write:

לעולם ר"ע - משום הכי מוקי פלוגתייהו בנשבע וכר"ע ולא מוקי לה בשלא נשבע ותיתי כר' טרפון משום דבכל דוכתא מהדרי לאוקמי מתני' כר' עקיבא כדאשכחן בסוף השוכר את האומנין (ב"מ דף פב.) דפריך אי הכי קמה לה מתני' דלא כרבי עקיבא:

Really, it is Rabbi Akiva: Because of this they establish the argument by where he swore, and like Rabbi Akiva, and not where he didn’t swear, and working like Rabbi Tarfon. Because in all placed, we work hard to establish the Mishnah like Rabbi Akiva, as we find in the end of perek Hasocher et HaUmnin (Bava Metzia 82a) where we ask, “if so, we are establishing the Mishnah not in accordance with Rabbi Akiva!”

That gemara reads:

אי הכי קמה לה מתני' דלא כרבי עקיבא אלא מחוורתא מתני' דלא כר' אליעזר

The Gemara raises a difficulty: If that is so, it turns out that the mishna is established not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva. This is problematic, as most of the Sages of the mishna were Rabbi Akiva’s students, and anonymous mishnayot are generally presumed to follow his rulings. Rather, it is clear that the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer.

or, with Rav Steinsaltz’s interpolated Hebrew commentary:

ומקשים: אי הכי [אם כך] אתה מפרש, נמצא כי קמה עומדת] וססוברת לה מתניתין [משנתנו] שלא כשיטת ר' עקיבא וקשה לומר כך, כי רוב חכמי המשנה היו תלמידיו, ומן הסתם בשיטתו הלכו. אלא מחוורתא מתניתין דלא [אלא ברור שמשנתנו אינה] כשיטת ר' אליעזר היא.

To spell this out a bit further, and slightly different from the way Rav Adin Steinsaltz elucidated the gemara in translation above. Because the explanation is that Rabbi Akiva’s students appear in the Mishnayot, and so anonymous Mishnayot should follow him. I would formulate it instead as follows.

In Sanhedrin 86a, Rabbi Yochanan spells out the authorship of several Tannaitic works:

דאמר ר' יוחנן סתם מתני' ר' מאיר סתם תוספתא ר' נחמיה סתם ספרא רבי יהודה סתם ספרי ר"ש וכולהו אליבא דר"ע:

and Rabbi Yoḥanan says: An unattributed mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir; an unattributed baraita in the Tosefta is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Neḥemya; an unattributed baraita in the Sifra, the halakhic midrash on the book of Leviticus, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda; and an unattributed baraita in the Sifrei is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. And all of these are in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, as all the Sages mentioned were his disciples. Therefore, it is unlikely that an unattributed baraita from the Sifrei would run counter to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon.

The reason that an unattributed Mishnah accords with Rabbi Meir may be that he composed it. Even if you say that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi redacted the Mishnah, he operated on an already composed work by Rabbi Meir. Or else, it was put together specifically by students of Rabbi Meir. And, since Rabbi Meir is Rabbi Akiva’s student, he would operate within an Akiban framework.