Talmud Bavli
Talmud Bavli

Responsa for Bava Batra 261:8

ואפי' לר' מאיר דאמר אדם מקנה דבר שלא בא לעולם הני מילי לדבר שישנו בעולם אבל לדבר שאינו בעולם לא

[Now], if it is assumed [that] we learnt, "they shall take", why may they not seize sold property?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which was really mortgaged to them prior to the sale. The right to the gift was acquired at once, i.e., on the date of the marriage contract. ');"><sup>20</sup></span> Consequently it must be inferred that we learnt: "they shall inherit"'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since an inheritance takes effect after the testator's death, the buyers of the property, purchase of which took place in the owner's lifetime, have the prior claim. R. Nathan's objection was, therefore, well founded. ');"><sup>21</sup></span> [Now], who has been heard to hold this view?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Enunciated in the cited Mishnah. ');"><sup>22</sup></span>

Teshuvot Maharam

Q. Before marrying his second wife, A stipulated, in the presence of witnesses, the following condition in his agreement with the sons of his first wife: The sons that will be born from the contemplated marriage shall share equally with the sons of his first marriage in the inheritance of his estate. Subsequently A married and his second wife bore him a daughter. Before his death A sought witnesses to attest to his will that his daughter should inherit part of his estate, but he was overtaken by sudden death. Are we to assume that in the agreement referred to above A intended to give to a daughter the status of a son?
A. The term "sons" when used in vows does not include daughters. Moreover, a person who has sons has no right to give his daughter the status of an heir. Therefore, A's daughter is not entitled to the share of an heir in A's estate.
SOURCES: L. 236; Mord. B. B. 603; Agudah B. B. 190; cf. Sinai IV (1941) 10, no. 88.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Previous VerseFull ChapterNext Verse