Talmud Bavli
Talmud Bavli

Responsa for Bava Batra 302:8

איתיביה רב משרשיא לרבא מעשה באמן של בני רוכל שהיתה חולה ואמרה תנתן כבינתי לבתי והוא בשנים עשר מנה ומתה וקיימו דבריה התם במצוה מחמת מיתה

Now if, [as you assert, our Mishnah refers to the case] where symbolic acquisition took place.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'where they (i.e.. a court of law or witnesses) did not acquire From him', on behalf of the donee, by means of symbolic acquisition. ');"><sup>18</sup></span> why is his gift invalid? — He replied unto him: Thus said Samuel, 'If a dying man gave all his property, in writing, to strangers, although [symbolic] acquisition took place,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'they took possession from his hand'. Cf. previous note but one. ');"><sup>19</sup></span> he may retract if he recovered, because it is known that he disposed<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'instructed', or (cf. BaH) 'symbolic acquisition took place', v. infra p. 660. ');"><sup>20</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