Responsa for Bava Batra 315:2

בית שמאי אומרים יחלוקו ובית הלל אומרים נכסים בחזקתן כתובה בחזקת יורשי הבעל נכסים הנכנסין והיוצאין עמה בחזקת יורשי האב:

PLEAD [THAT] THE HUSBAND DIED FIRST [AND THAT] THE WIFE DIED AFTERWARDS, BETH SHAMMAI HOLD [THAT THE ESTATE] IS TO BE DIVIDED,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since it is impossible to ascertain who in fact died first, the ownership of the estate is a matter of doubt, and any property the ownership of which is in doubt must be divided between the claiming parties. ');">7 AND BETH HILLEL HOLD [THAT] POSSESSIONS<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., property which the wife brought to her husband on marriage, and the value of which was included in her marriage contract, the husband assuming full responsibility for loss or profit. ');">8 [ARE TO REMAIN WITH THOSE WHO ARE] IN THEIR ESTABLISHED RIGHT OF OWNERSHIP;9 THE KETHUBAH<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the sum of a hundred, (in the case of the marriage of a widow), or of two hundred zuz (in the case of the marriage of a virgin), and the 'additional sum' which a husband undertakes to pay to his wife upon divorce or upon his death, and which forms the principal element in a marriage contract. ');">10 IN THE POSSESSION OF THE HEIRS OF THE HUSBAND; [AND] THE PROPERTY THAT COMES IN AND GOES OUT WITH HER11 IN THE POSSESSION OF THE HEIRS OF THE FATHER.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the wife. Since she obtained the property from her father's house and since the property itself remained all the time in her possession, the heirs of her father's house are entitled to inherit it. (CF. Rashb. and R. Gersh. a.l.) ');">12

Teshuvot Maharam

Q. A, his four daughters, and his wife, were killed when the house they occupied collapsed. A's heirs claim that perhaps the wife died first and that therefore they now were the only heirs to A's estate. The wife's brothers, on the other hand, claim that perhaps the wife died last and that therefore they were entitled to her ketubah. Some Rabbis are of the opinion that the wife's heirs were entitled to one-twelfth of the estate; while other Rabbis, computing probabilities, believe that they were entitled to one thirty-second of the estate.
A. It is my humble opinion that the wife's heirs are entitled to one-half of the estate, because of the talmudic principle Kol Kavua kemahaze al mahaze domi, meaning: whenever an event is about to befall (or has befallen) one of a number of fixed persons or objects, each person or object has a fifty-fifty chance that the incident will befall (or has befallen) him or it. Therefore, legally, there is a fifty-fifty chance for each one of the six persons involved that he or she died last. Had the daughters been married and had their husbands appeared to demand their share, the estate would have had to be divided into six parts. But, since only two persons demand their share, the estate should be divided between the two. Although a woman has to take an oath before she is entitled to collect her ketubah, no such oath is required in this case since A died suddenly and we have no reason to suspect that before his death he had deposited with her valuables to be used in payment of her ketubah.
SOURCES: Cr. 172; L. 378; Mord. B. B. 638; Tesh. Maim. to Mishpatim, 5; Agudah B. B. 213; Asher, Responsa 84, 3. Cf. ibid. 85, 1; ibid. 86, 1; Maharil, Responsa 63; ibid. 169; Moses Minz, Responsa 96; Terumat Hadeshen 330.

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Previous Verse Full Chapter