Responsa for Eruvin 129:26
Teshuvot Maharam
Q. A gave his daughters causa mortis gifts, each gift consisted of three marks. Subsequently, L, one of his daughters, and her husband said to A that he still owed them three marks worth of gold which he had promised them before their wedding. A answered incoherently, for he was losing consciousness, that he thus intended to repay them, but died before finishing his words.
A. A's last words are of no consequence since he was not in his right mind while uttering them. Therefore, if A's daughters admit that A had promised L three marks as part of her dowry and had not paid it to her, L is entitled to collect three marks in addition to the causa mortis gift, for while A, on his death-bed, gave presents to his other daughters, he probably intended to make no exception in his dealing with L. But, if the other daughters disclaim any knowledge of A's debt, they must take an heir's oath. Although I have often contended that an heir's oath is imposed on a claimant only, but not a defendant, the custom is widely accepted to impose such an oath even on a defendant.
SOURCES: Cr. 97.
A. A's last words are of no consequence since he was not in his right mind while uttering them. Therefore, if A's daughters admit that A had promised L three marks as part of her dowry and had not paid it to her, L is entitled to collect three marks in addition to the causa mortis gift, for while A, on his death-bed, gave presents to his other daughters, he probably intended to make no exception in his dealing with L. But, if the other daughters disclaim any knowledge of A's debt, they must take an heir's oath. Although I have often contended that an heir's oath is imposed on a claimant only, but not a defendant, the custom is widely accepted to impose such an oath even on a defendant.
SOURCES: Cr. 97.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy