Talmud Bavli
Talmud Bavli

Responsa for Bava Batra 302:1

וכי קיימא הות הדרא בה זימנא חדא חלשא שלחה ליה תא קני שלח לא בעינא שלחה ליה תא קני כל היכא דבעית אזל שיירה וקנו מינה כי קיימא הדרא בה

but as [soon as] she recovered she withdrew. On one occasion she fell ill and sent [word] to him, 'Come [and] take possession'. He replied,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'sent'. ');"><sup>1</sup></span> 'I have no desire'. [Thereupon] she [again] sent [word] to him, 'Come [and] take possession in whatever manner you desire'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that she shall not be able again to retract. ');"><sup>2</sup></span> [Then] he went, left for her [some portion of the intended gift]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In such a case the donor cannot withdraw, (Cf. our Mishnah, supra 146b.) ');"><sup>3</sup></span>

Teshuvot Maharam

Q. Before her death, Leah, in the presence of witnesses, said: "All my possessions shall go to B and C except what I have already given to charity." After her death, B and C found some of her possessions in A's hands. They demanded these possessions from A who, in turn, claimed that Leah gave them to him as a gift mortis causa before she gave anything to B and C.
A. If, while making the gift to A, Leah indicated that she was making such a gift in fear of approaching death, then her final words, giving everything to B and C, prevail, since she probably changed her mind regarding her gift to A. A, then, must return the property to B and C. But, if Leah made no mention of death when she gave some of her possessions to A, then such a gift is in the category of a "sick man's gift of part of his property" (Baba Batra 151b) which requires a kinyan (formal act of possession). Since in this case, there was a kinyan (the property was in A's possession at the time of the gift), the property belongs to A.
SOURCES: Cr. 206; Pr. 34; L. 344; Tesh. Maim to Kinyan, 12. Cf. Tur Hoshen Mishpat 250; ibid. Beth Joseph ad. 1.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Teshuvot Maharam

Q. Before her death, Leah, in the presence of witnesses, said: "All my possessions shall go to B and C except what I have already given to charity." After her death, B and C found some of her possessions in A's hands. They demanded these possessions from A who, in turn, claimed that Leah gave them to him as a gift mortis causa before she gave anything to B and C.
A. If, while making the gift to A, Leah indicated that she was making such a gift in fear of approaching death, then her final words, giving everything to B and C, prevail, since she probably changed her mind regarding her gift to A. A, then, must return the property to B and C. But, if Leah made no mention of death when she gave some of her possessions to A, then such a gift is in the category of a "sick man's gift of part of his property" (Baba Batra 151b) which requires a kinyan (formal act of possession). Since in this case, there was a kinyan (the property was in A's possession at the time of the gift), the property belongs to A.
SOURCES: Cr. 206; Pr. 34; L. 344; Tesh. Maim to Kinyan, 12. Cf. Tur Hoshen Mishpat 250; ibid. Beth Joseph ad. 1.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Full ChapterNext Verse