Responsa for Bava Batra 296:15

Q. A drew up a legal document in which he used the following words: "Effective as of today, but to be executed after our (meaning himself and his wife, L) deaths, our daughter R shall inherit an equal share with her brothers, those already born and those that might be born, in whatever will remain of my estate." After A's death, his children and his widow, L, interpreted the document to mean that A had appointed L trustee over his estate. When L proved a very inefficient, careless, and wasteful trustee, A's sons reached an agreement with L, whereby she was to receive forty marks for turning over the estate to A's sons immediately. Before relinquishing her trusteeship, L and her youngest son B (who was eighteen years of age) agreed to allow R's husband to take his wife's share of the estate immediately, without having to wait for L's death. A's two other sons object to this latter agreement.
A. A's heirs were entitled to take over his estate at any time they wished to do so. The giving of forty marks to L in order that she relinquish her trusteeship, was entirely unnecessary, for A's document, while making the collection of R's share in A's estate dependant on L's death, did not appoint L trustee of said estate. Moreover, had A explicitly appointed L trustee of his estate, the court would have removed her at no expense to the heirs, since she had proven to be inefficient, careless, and wasteful. The second agreement is not binding on A's two sons since L, not being a trustee of the estate, had no legal power to dispose of part of the estate. B, however, was able to forego his own part of R's share, and his act is binding upon such part if R (or her husband) was in possession of her share at the time of the latter agreement. Thus R would be entitled to receive one third of her share (B's part of her share) immediately, while B's two brothers would manage the other two-thirds for their own profit and gain until L's death.
Although the brothers are entitled to manage R's share for their own profit, they are not permitted to sell or otherwise alienate any part of it; and their responsibility thereto would be that of a gratuitous watchman. Thus any increase that will accrue until L's death will belong to the brothers, while, any decrease of value caused by theft, loss or unavoidable accident will be suffered by R. Should the brothers be called upon to pay L her ketubah, one quarter of such payment should come out of R's share. R may not claim that her father has made her an outright gift, free of any lien or obligation, since A did not intend to give R a greater share than that of his sons. After L's death, R may exact an oath from her brothers to the effect that they did not retain for themselves anything belonging to her.
Q. L's trustee claimed that L's property which she had given to her husband, had been given only to gratify him, but had not been intended as an outright gift. Therefore, this property had belonged to L; and she gave it to her mother by right.
A. This property was not listed in L's ketubah, and was thus considered niksei melug regarding which a woman may not claim that her gift thereof to her husband was not actually meant to be binding but was given in order to gratify him (B. B. 50a). Therefore, the gift was binding, and she no longer had any claim to said property. She had no right to give it to her mother.
This Resp. is addressed to: "My teacher Rabbi Eliezer b. Ephraim."
SOURCES: Cr. 30; Pr. 243–4; Am II, 18.

Q. A promised to give two marks for a holy cause should he cohabit with his wife, within the year. He did cohabit with her within that time. If such promise of a gift were made by an individual, even had such money been actually delivered to the donee, it would be considered an asmakhta and would be void. Therefore, this conditional promise for a holy cause should also be void, for, although a mere verbal promise for a holy cause is as valid as an actual delivery (of money and valuables) to a private person, it has no greater validity than such delivery; and any transaction classified as an asmakhta is invalid even if the money and valuables are actually delivered. Although a conditional promise classified as asmakhta, if accompanied by a kinyan and made before an authoritative court, is valid, its validity stems from the powers of confiscation inherent in the authoritative court, but not from an act of the promisor.
A. A must pay two marks to the holy cause. A mere verbal promise to a holy cause is as binding as a similar promise to an individual accompanied by any manner of conveyance that serves to validate such promise. Since a conditional promise classified as asmakhta is valid if accompanied by a kinyan and made before an authoritative court, a mere promise of this kind made to charity or to a holy cause is binding, even though the promise was not made before an authoritative court. The validity of a conditional promise made before an authoritative court does not stem from the court's power of confiscation, otherwise no kinyan would have been required. Moreover, the power of confiscation by a Jewish court is invoked only for the furtherance of proper conduct in accordance with Jewish principles (לפגדר מלתא) but not for the sake of validating private transactions.
This responsum was addressed to Rabbi Solomon "a prominent scholar from France".
SOURCES: Am II, 99; Mord. B.K. 44; cf. Cr. 299–300; Pr. 493; Agudah B.K. 51; Asher, Responsa 13, 2; Isserlein, Pesakim 53.

When Rabbi Zamlan was ill he sent for Rabbi Asher in order that the latter help him dispose of his property in a manner that would make it impossible for his wife, L, to appropriate his possessions in payment of her ketubah or for her sustenance. Rabbi Asher refused to come, but Rabbi Zamlan implored him and pleaded with him saying: "What can I do for my only son who, after my death, will have to go begging from door to door?" Rabbi Asher then agreed to act as a witness, and Rabbi Zamlan gave away to his son and to other persons, all of his property as an outright gift effective immediately. After his death, L's relatives summoned Rabbi Zamlan's son to the court of Rabbi Perez. The latter recorded the claims of the two parties and sent the claims to Rabbi Meir without giving the names of the litigants and without expressing any opinion on the subject. Rabbi Meir ruled that L was entitled to collect her ketubah, or to draw her sustenance, from the possessions of Rabbi Zamlan which he had given to his son; his reason being that even an outright gift to an heir is considered an inheritance and that the widow's ketubah is a lien upon it.
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.