Talmud Bavli
Talmud Bavli

Responsa for Bava Batra 302:6

איתיביה רבא לרב נחמן שייר קרקע כל שהוא מתנתו קיימת מאי לאו דלא קנו מיניה לא דקנו מיניה אי הכי אימא סיפא לא שייר קרקע כל שהוא אין מתנתו קיימת ואי דקנו מיניה אמאי אין מתנתו קיימת

in the presence of Raba, in the name of Mar Zutra, son of R. Nahman, who reported 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 man who is dying. 'It is like the gift of a man in good health', in that if he recovered he [can] not retract; and 'it is like the gift of a man who is dying', in that no [symbolic] acquisition is required.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And if he died the recipient acquired its ownership. ');"><sup>15</sup></span> Raba said unto them: Did I not tell you [that] you shall not hang empty jars on R. Nahman?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e. 'do not attribute to him such absurd views', v. supra p. 27. n. 2. ');"><sup>16</sup></span> Thus said R. Nahman: It is like the gift of a man in good health and requires [symbolic] acquisition.

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