Talmud Bavli
Talmud Bavli

Responsa for Bava Batra 302:5

אמר להו רבא לאו אמינא לכו לא תיתלו בוקי סריקי ברב נחמן הכי אמר רב נחמן הרי היא כמתנת בריא ובעיא קנין

It was stated: [In the case where] a dying man presented a part<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'a gift of … in part'. ');"><sup>12</sup></span> [of his estate], Raba<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf.. BaH. a.l. Current texts read: 'The Rabbis said it before Raba in the name of Mar Zutra the son of R. Nahman who said it in the name of R. Nahman: It is like the gift of a man in good health and it is like the gift of a dying man. It is like the gift etc. ');"><sup>13</sup></span> said in the name of R. Nahman: It is like the gift of a man in good health and requires [symbolic] acquisition. The Rabbis reported the following,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'they said it.' ');"><sup>14</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