Responsa for Bava Batra 263:9
והתניא הרי שהלך בנו למדינת הים ושמע שמת בנו ועמד וכתב כל נכסיו לאחרים ואחר כך בא בנו מתנתו מתנה ר' שמעון בן מנסיא אומר אין מתנתו מתנה שאילו היה יודע שבנו קיים לא כתבן ואמר רב נחמן הלכה כרבי שמעון בן מנסיא
— There<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the case of a widow who forfeits her kethubah on account if a gift she received from her husband. ');"><sup>32</sup></span> it is different, for she is content [to renounce her claim to her <i>kethubah</i>] for the pleasure of having it known<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'that a voice may issue about her'. ');"><sup>33</sup></span> that [her husband] had presented<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'written'. ');"><sup>34</sup></span> her with that property.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The assumption, therefore, is that she willingly renounced her claims to the kethubah. R. Nahman, in his decision, consequently takes assumption into consideration here also. ');"><sup>35</sup></span>
Teshuvot Maharam
A. After the money was given over to the community, neither A nor his family had greater rights to it than any other member of the community. The community, therefore, is not obligated to appoint A's son-in-law as their Rabbi. Moreover, it is to be presumed that A made a nobly charitable gift to the community without attaching any reservations or conditions. The law of R. Simon (B.B. 132a) deals with a charitable gift made under an erroneous assumption, while in our case no such condition existed.
SOURCES: Pr. 942; Mord. B. B. 486; Agudah B. B. 20.