Responsa for Bava Batra 277:21
אמר אביי אי לאו דשלח רבין אנן לא ידעינן והא תנן אלו הן שאין חוזרין ביובל הבכורה
R. Papa said to Raba:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who had attempted to prove above, from R. Hiyya's statement, that a husband is regarded as an heir. ');"><sup>59</sup></span> Is not this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That a husband has the status of an heir. ');"><sup>60</sup></span> the very [case] which Rabin had sent in his letter?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From Palestine to Babylon ');"><sup>61</sup></span> If a person died, [he wrote], and left a widow and a daughter, his widow is to receive her maintenance out of his estate.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' in accordance with his undertaking in the kethubah which is given to one's wife. ');"><sup>62</sup></span> [If] the daughter married,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And thus transferred the estate into her husband's possession. ');"><sup>63</sup></span> his widow is [still] to receive her maintenance out of his estate. [If] the daughter died?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And her husband inherited her possessions. ');"><sup>64</sup></span> Rab Judah, the son of the sister of R. Jose b. Hanina, said: I had [such] a case, and it was decided<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'they said'. ');"><sup>65</sup></span> [that] his widow is to receive her maintenance out of his estate. [Now,] if it be granted<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'you said'. ');"><sup>66</sup></span> that he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The husband of the daughter, and so every husband. ');"><sup>67</sup></span> is [regarded as] an heir,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the property that his wife had brought to him; even during her lifetime. ');"><sup>68</sup></span> it is quite correct that his widow should be maintained out of his<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Her dead husband's, even if it passed into the possession of her daughter's husband. ');"><sup>69</sup></span> estate;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the amount required for the maintenance of a widow, may be collected from her husband's heirs. ');"><sup>70</sup></span> if, however, it is held<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'you said'. ');"><sup>66</sup></span> that he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The husband of the daughter, and so every husband. ');"><sup>67</sup></span> is [regarded as] a buyer, why should she be maintained out of his estate!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Surely a widow's maintenance cannot be collected from the buyers of her husband's property (Cf. Git. 48b) ');"><sup>71</sup></span> Abaye said: Would we not have known [this]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That a husband is regarded as an heir. ');"><sup>72</sup></span> if Rabin had not sent [his letter]? Surely we learnt:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Bek. 52b. ');"><sup>73</sup></span> The following do not return in the Jubilee year:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When all landed property that has been sold returns to its original owner. V., Lev. XXV, 28, 31. ');"><sup>74</sup></span> The [portion of] the birthright,
Teshuvot Maharam
A. Authorities differ regarding the rights of a husband over his wife's dowry. Some authorities decide that a husband has the rights of a buyer [who is not responsible for the seller's debts] while others hold that his rights are those of an heir [who is liable for the debts of his benefactor]. Since we can not choose between these conflicting opinions, we allow the money to remain in the hands of the present possessor. And since L has no money and will have no money till she be widowed or divorced, there is no sense in exacting an oath from her. We give B a written verdict, however, to the effect that in case L be widowed or divorced she then must take an oath denying B's claim or pay that debt.
SOURCES: Am II, 25, 27, 29. Cf. Agudah B. B. 185.
Teshuvot Maharam
A. A's unmarried sons are not entitled to marriage gifts. The estate is to be divided equally among the sons.
SOURCES: L. 181.
Teshuvot Maharam
Rabbi Perez took issue with Rabbi Meir quoting Alfasi's decision that the ordinance of Usha — which ruled that a person who divided all of his property among his children may derive his sustenance as well as that of his wife's from such property — was not accepted.
Rabbi Meir reproved Rabbi Perez for resorting to Alfasi when the Talmud specifically decided that the ordinance of Usha was not accepted. R. Meir contended, however, that only that part of the ordinance was not accepted which gave the right to the donor, and to his wife while he was alive, to derive their sustenance from the property he had given away; while the rule that the widow may collect her sustenance or her ketubah from such property after the donor's death, was accepted before the ordinance of Usha was promulgated, and has remained in force independently of such ordinance.
Meanwhile L's relatives have written to Rabbi Meir asking for his decsion in this matter. R. Meir answered that he usually refrained from sending legal opinions to litigants, or to their relatives, and confined his responses to judges. But, when Rabbi Perez, in his second letter, gave the names of the litigants, R. Meir realized that the letters from L's relatives dealt with the same case. R. Meir recalled that among these letters was found a letter from Rabbi Asher which explained the circumstances of the gift mentioned above. Therefore, R. Meir added (in his second letter to Rabbi Perez) that since according to Rabbi Asher's letter, the donor mentioned the contingency of death when he summoned Rabbi Asher, he therefore made the gift to his son causa mortis (cf. B. B. 151a), and a widow is undoubtedly entitled to collect her ketubah from causa mortis gifts.
SOURCES: Cr. 192; Am II, 46–7; cf. Hag. Maim. to Ishut 16, 4; Mord. Ket. 161. Cf. Agudah B.M. 29; Moses Minz, Responsa 66.