Talmud Bavli
Talmud Bavli

Responsa for Bava Batra 261:10

א"ל משום דקא מפיק לה בלשון ירתון

was] 'they shall take', or according to him who said [that the reading was], 'they shall inherit', [the question may be asked], surely one [has] not [the right] to give possession of something which is not yet in existence! And even R. Meir,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'according to R. Meir'. ');"><sup>26</sup></span> who maintains [that] one may give possession of that which is not yet in existence, applies this law<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'these words'. ');"><sup>27</sup></span> [only to the case where the possession was given] to one who is [already] in existence,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' At the time when possession was conferred. ');"><sup>28</sup></span>

Teshuvot Maharam

Q. Before marrying his second wife, A stipulated, in the presence of witnesses, the following condition in his agreement with the sons of his first wife: The sons that will be born from the contemplated marriage shall share equally with the sons of his first marriage in the inheritance of his estate. Subsequently A married and his second wife bore him a daughter. Before his death A sought witnesses to attest to his will that his daughter should inherit part of his estate, but he was overtaken by sudden death. Are we to assume that in the agreement referred to above A intended to give to a daughter the status of a son?
A. The term "sons" when used in vows does not include daughters. Moreover, a person who has sons has no right to give his daughter the status of an heir. Therefore, A's daughter is not entitled to the share of an heir in A's estate.
SOURCES: L. 236; Mord. B. B. 603; Agudah B. B. 190; cf. Sinai IV (1941) 10, no. 88.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Previous VerseFull ChapterNext Verse