Responsa על בבא בתרא 265:8
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.
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.
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