Responsa for Bava Batra 301:8

אתא רב ששת לקמיה דרב נחמן אמר ליה מאי טעמא אוקמיה מר לרב עוקבא בר חמא אי משום דהדרא בה והא שכיבא אמר ליה הכי אמר שמואל כל שאילו עמד חוזר חוזר במתנתו

of Rami b. Hama gave her property in writing to Rami b. Hama, in the evening; [but] in the morning she gave them in writing to R. 'Ukba b. Hama. Rami b. Hama came before R. Shesheth who confirmed him in the possession of the property. R. 'Ukba b. Hama, [however]. went to R. Nahman who [similarly] confirmed him in the possession of the property. R. Shesheth [thereupon] appeared before R. Nahman [and] said unto him, 'what is the reason [that] the Master has confirmed R. 'Ukba b. Hama in possession? Is it because she retracted? Surely she died'!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A dying person who gave away all his property to another may withdraw it only if he recovers. Since this woman, however, died, her gift to Rami should remain valid as the gift of a dying person which cannot be withdrawn. ');">20 He21 replied unto him: Thus said Samuel, 'Wherever a person may retract if he recovered,22

Teshuvot Maharam

Q. While critically ill, A gave a bill of divorcement to his wife on condition that should he die from this illness, she should be divorced therewith from the day she receives the divorce. After the bill of divorcement was thus delivered to A's wife, it was torn up. Subsequently A's condition improved; he got up from bed, walked to the synagogue and to the market place without a cane, and even arranged his mother's funeral out of town. Twenty-eight days thereafter, however, he fell ill again and died. During these twenty-eight days he was at times lying in bed, and at other times he was upon his feet. Was the bill of divorcement effective?
A. The bill of divorcement was ineffective. First, according to R. Tam and Ri the stipulated condition mentioned above, is to be interpreted to mean that A intended the divorce to become effective an hour before his death. Since on the day of A's death the bill of divorcement was already torn up, no divorce took place. A similar query was sent to me from Acco (Aachen?) and I ruled that no divorce took place. I always advise women who receive such conditional divorces to guard their bills of divorcement carefully till their husbands die. Secondly, even according to Rashi, who believes that the divorce becomes effective immediately upon the delivery of the bill of divorcement, if the husband subsequently dies from his illness, the fact that A was walking thereafter without the support of a cane nullified the bill of divorcement. In any event the advice of a medical authority would be required in order to decide whether or not A died from his first illness; and nowadays we have no medical authorities on whose expert opinion we can definitely rely in such a vital matter.
R. Meir adds: I do not possess the Tosaphot to tractate Gittin, nor the code books from the south (Alfasi and Maimonides). I composed the above with the help of heavenly guide; if you find that the Tosaphot and the codes hold another opinion, my opinion is nullified by theirs; for what does a poor man know, one who dwells in darkness and gloom for three and one half years.
This responsum was sent to Rabbi Asher from the tower of Ensisheim and was placed in his (R. Meir's) novellae in his own handwriting.
SOURCES: Am II, 108; Tesh. Maim. to Nashim, 30; Mordecai Hagadol, p. 229b.

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Previous Verse Full Chapter Next Verse