Talmud Bavli
Talmud Bavli

Responsa for Bava Batra 265:8

אלא אמר רבא כדשלח רב אחא בר רב עויא לדברי רבי יוחנן בן ברוקה נכסי לך ואחריך לפלוני אם היה ראשון ראוי ליורשו אין לשני במקום ראשון כלום שאין לשון מתנה אלא לשון ירושה וירושה אין לה הפסק

widow is to be maintained out of his estate,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 558, n. 11. ');"><sup>23</sup></span> how much more [should that be so] in [the case of] a gift<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Made by a dying man without a properly binding agreement. ');"><sup>24</sup></span> which is only Rabbinical?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' According to Biblical law a gift made in such a manner is not legally binding and remains part of the estate. ');"><sup>25</sup></span> But, said Raba, [the difference<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Between 'gift' and 'inheritance'. ');"><sup>26</sup></span>

Teshuvot Maharam

Q. Leah, A's widow who was now the wife of C, had taken the proper oath regarding her ketubah before a court, whereupon the court had transferred to her A's house in payment of her ketubah. This house had been originally given to A by his father, B, who had distributed the rest of his property among his (B's) sons-in-law as gifts causa mortis. B's sons-in-law now claim to possess a deed to the effect that B gave the house to A with the stipulation that, in case A died childless, the house should belong to B's daughters. [Since A died childless] B's sons-in-law demand the house.
A. Since A was the legal heir to the house, B had no power to terminate A's normal right of conveying his inheritance to his heirs (cf. B. B. 133a). Therefore, B's stipulation limiting A's normal right of inheritance was void; the house unreservedly belonged to A, and Leah, his widow, had the right to collect her ketubah therefrom.
SOURCES: Cr. 260; P. 287; Mord. B.B. 595; Hag. Maim., Zekiah 12, 3; Asher Responsa 84, 2; Tur Hoshen Mishpat 248; Agudah B.B. 180.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Teshuvot Maharam

Q. Leah, A's widow who was now the wife of C, had taken the proper oath regarding her ketubah before a court, whereupon the court had transferred to her A's house in payment of her ketubah. This house had been originally given to A by his father, B, who had distributed the rest of his property among his (B's) sons-in-law as gifts causa mortis. B's sons-in-law now claim to possess a deed to the effect that B gave the house to A with the stipulation that, in case A died childless, the house should belong to B's daughters. [Since A died childless] B's sons-in-law demand the house.
A. Since A was the legal heir to the house, B had no power to terminate A's normal right of conveying his inheritance to his heirs (cf. B. B. 133a). Therefore, B's stipulation limiting A's normal right of inheritance was void; the house unreservedly belonged to A, and Leah, his widow, had the right to collect her ketubah therefrom.
SOURCES: Cr. 260; P. 287; Mord. B.B. 595; Hag. Maim., Zekiah 12, 3; Asher Responsa 84, 2; Tur Hoshen Mishpat 248; Agudah B.B. 180.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Previous VerseFull ChapterNext Verse