Responsa for Bava Batra 212:7

Q. Leah died leaving two sons, A and C; the former is now here but the latter is away. A demands his share of a deposit Leah had left with B. Must the latter give A his share, or may he defer the return of the deposit till C appears?
A. A is to be given his share of the deposit by the order and supervision of a court; while the other half is to be left, with B, for C.
This Responsum is addressed to Rabbi Menahem haLevi and Rabbi Joseph.
SOURCES: Cr. 43; Am II, 206; Mord. B. M. 283; Tesh. Maim. to Mishpatim, 26.

Q. Leah died leaving two sons, A and C; the former is now here but the latter is away. A demands his share of a deposit Leah had left with B. Must the latter give A his share, or may he defer the return of the deposit till C appears?
A. A is to be given his share of the deposit by the order and supervision of a court; while the other half is to be left, with B, for C.
This Responsum is addressed to Rabbi Menahem haLevi and Rabbi Joseph.
SOURCES: Cr. 43; Am II, 206; Mord. B. M. 283; Tesh. Maim. to Mishpatim, 26.

Q. A, a levir, married the widow of his brother B and had children with her. B had died while his father was still alive, but subsequently the father also died. Before his death, however, the latter divided his property equally among his sons. While A was away his remaining three brothers divided the father's landed property into four equal parts, one for each brother. When A returned he did not object to the division; and after his death, when the brothers sold their parts, his widow and orphans did not protest against the sale for over three years. Now, however, the latter claim that the division was unjust and the sale, therefore, invalid since A was entitled to a double portion of the estate, his own and that of his brother B.
A. Both, the division of the property by the brothers, and its subsequent sale, would be void, according to Rashi, since A was entitled to a double portion out of his father's estate. The fact that both transactions were not protested for over three years, is of no consequence since the brothers, or their successors, do not claim that A officially forewent or sold his rights. Moreover, A died before the three years of undisturbed possession were over, and one cannot claim undisturbed possession as evidence of title to property belonging to young orphans even after they grow up. However, since A's father divided his property among his sons, A is not entitled to any more than what his father gave him; for he received his portion as a gift and not as an inheritance.
This Responsum is addressed to R. Eliezer haLevi.
SOURCES: L. 384; Tesh. Maim. to Mishpatim, 51.