Talmud Bavli
Talmud Bavli

Responsa for Bava Batra 302:10

וממאי דלא קנו מיניה דומיא דגט מה גט לאו בר קנין אף האי נמי דלא קנו מיניה התם נמי במצוה מחמת מיתה

— There [it was a case] of an Instruction [clearly] given owing to [the expectation of] death.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., she stated distinctly the reason of the gift she was making. An instruction given in such circumstances, if followed by the death of the testator, requires no symbolic acquisition whether a portion of, or all the estate was presented. ');"><sup>23</sup></span> Rabina raised an objection against Raba: If a person said, 'Give this bill of divorce to my wife', or, '[Give] this writ of emancipation to my slave', and he died, it must not be delivered after [his] death.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since a divorce or the liberation of a slave does not take effect until actual delivery of the respective documents has taken place, and by that time the husband or master is dead and be can neither divorce nor liberate. ');"><sup>24</sup></span> [If. however, he said.] 'Give a <i>maneh</i> to X, and he died, it is to be given [to X] after [the testator's] death!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Git. 13a. Even though, apparently, there was no symbolic acquisition. How, then, can Raba maintain that such acquisition is required? ');"><sup>25</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
Previous VerseFull ChapterNext Verse