Responsa for Yevamot 79:7
אלא רצה מצה אוכלה רצה חמץ אוכלה
so that, if he wished, he could eat it and, if he preferred, he could abstain from eating it. — [You say,] 'If he preferred he could abstain from eating it'? Surely it is written in the Scriptures, And they shall eat those things wherewith atonement was made<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXIX, 33. ');"><sup>11</sup></span> which teaches that the priests must eat them, and that the owner attains thereby atonement! Say rather: [it might be assumed that] if he wished, he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The priest who performed the ceremonial. ');"><sup>12</sup></span>
Teshuvot Maharam
Q. A, a levir, married the widow of his brother B and had children with her. B had died while his father was still alive, but subsequently the father also died. Before his death, however, the latter divided his property equally among his sons. While A was away his remaining three brothers divided the father's landed property into four equal parts, one for each brother. When A returned he did not object to the division; and after his death, when the brothers sold their parts, his widow and orphans did not protest against the sale for over three years. Now, however, the latter claim that the division was unjust and the sale, therefore, invalid since A was entitled to a double portion of the estate, his own and that of his brother B.
A. Both, the division of the property by the brothers, and its subsequent sale, would be void, according to Rashi, since A was entitled to a double portion out of his father's estate. The fact that both transactions were not protested for over three years, is of no consequence since the brothers, or their successors, do not claim that A officially forewent or sold his rights. Moreover, A died before the three years of undisturbed possession were over, and one cannot claim undisturbed possession as evidence of title to property belonging to young orphans even after they grow up. However, since A's father divided his property among his sons, A is not entitled to any more than what his father gave him; for he received his portion as a gift and not as an inheritance.
This Responsum is addressed to R. Eliezer haLevi.
SOURCES: L. 384; Tesh. Maim. to Mishpatim, 51.
A. Both, the division of the property by the brothers, and its subsequent sale, would be void, according to Rashi, since A was entitled to a double portion out of his father's estate. The fact that both transactions were not protested for over three years, is of no consequence since the brothers, or their successors, do not claim that A officially forewent or sold his rights. Moreover, A died before the three years of undisturbed possession were over, and one cannot claim undisturbed possession as evidence of title to property belonging to young orphans even after they grow up. However, since A's father divided his property among his sons, A is not entitled to any more than what his father gave him; for he received his portion as a gift and not as an inheritance.
This Responsum is addressed to R. Eliezer haLevi.
SOURCES: L. 384; Tesh. Maim. to Mishpatim, 51.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy