skip to main |
skip to sidebar
One empty line between the document's text and the signatures of witnesses is to be expected, but two lines make it invalid because this opens up the document to forgery. The space of the two lines is measured in the larger handwriting of witnesses and not in the smaller handwriting of the professional scribe. We assume that anybody who falsifies a document does it himself and does not go to a scribe.
Rav said that a certified document with both its text and the signatures of its witnesses written on erased parchment is valid, if it can be discerned that it was erased only once. But maybe he erased the document and the signatures, wrote a new document, forged the signatures, and re-used the certification? Rav answers that such a document is certified not from the certification written in it but from the signatures; thus, the forger gains nothing.
Art: Drawing Board Pipe Onions And Sealing Wax by Van Gogh
If the witnesses leave a space of two lines, the document becomes invalid. However, if they fill the space with the signatures of witnesses who are either relatives or otherwise ineligible to be witnesses, such as gamblers, the document is valid. This is similar to the fact that a hole of three hand-breadths in the covering of a sukkah invalidates it, but a patch of covering made of unfit material can be up to four amot.
Art: A Trompe L'Oeil With A Pewter Ink Stand, Books And Papers by Edwaert Collier
In a regular document, the witnesses sign immediately at the end of the document's text, thus precluding the possibility of tampering with it.
In contrast, a "bound" document requires that the witnesses sign between each fold. However, this opens a possibility of forgery.
Should we be concerned that, having the witnesses already signed above, he will write an additional clause at the end of the document that benefits him? - No, because the words "firm and established" are written at the end of a bound document.
What if he erases the words "firm and established," adds to the document, and then writes the words "firm and established" again? - Additions do not invalidate the document, but erasures, even certified with "firm and established", do invalidate it.
Art: Still Life with Documents by John Turing
Two kinds of documents are “plain” and “folded” or “bound.” A plain document is written in the usual fashion, with the pertinent information in a single, unbroken body of text.
Folded or “bound” document is written in the following manner. The scribe writes the first line and leaves the second line blank. He then folds the written line forward onto the blank blank and sows (“binds”) the fold shut. He then repeats this process for subsequent lines.
The Sages created the “bound” document, which was very hard to produce, to prevent Kohanim from rashly divorcing their wives. A Kohen cannot remarry his wife because she has become a divorcee. Now that he is first required to find a scribe who knows how to produce a “bound” Get, he will make peace with her. Commercial documents can also be “bound.” Not widely used even in the time of the Mishna, the “bound” document went entirely out of use by the 10th century.
Art: The scribe by John Frederick Lewis
They sent a ruling from Israel: If a son borrowed against his father's property and subsequently died, his son can seize it from purchasers.
Now, what is hard to understand here? The son stood to inherit his father. He sold some properties that would be coming to him in the future. Later, he died and thus never inherited those properties. Now, his son (a grandson) can tell the buyers, "My father sold you property that he stood to inherit but never inherited, so the sale is void. I inherit it not from my father but directly from my grandfather." In this case, the rule that the grandson inherits directly from the grandfather is derived from the following: "In place of your fathers shall be your sons..."
So what is difficult? That "In place of your fathers..." refers to blessings, not monetary laws.
Art: Grandfather's Jack in the Box by Arthur Boyd Houghton
Consider the case where a house collapsed on a son and his mother. Since it is not known who died first, the son's paternal brothers claim that perhaps the mother died first, the son inherited her, and they should inherit him. The mother's relatives (for example, her paternal brothers) claim that perhaps the son died first, so he never inherited anything, so they inherit the estate.
Unlike in the case of a father and son, here the claims of both sides are equally based on "perhaps," and therefore, both Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel agree that they divide it.
Rabbi Akiva says that Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai also argue in this case, but Ben Azzai said to Rabbi Akiva, "We are in enough pain over what they disagree, and now you come to dispute a unanimous decision?"
Art: Backyards of Old Houses in Antwerp in the Snow by Van Gogh
Consider the following case. A house collapsed on a son and his father, and it is not clear who died first. The son had nothing, but he had debts and the obligation to pay Ketubah to his wife.
The son's creditors claim that perhaps his father died first. Then, the inheritance passed to the son before he died, and they could collect. The father's inheritors claim that perhaps the son died first. Thus, when the father died, they inherited his property directly, leaving nothing for the son's creditors.
Beit Shammai says that the father's heirs and the son's creditors divide the money, but Beit Hillel says that the property remains in the possession of the father's heirs. We can understand Beit Hillel's reasoning, but what is Beit Shammai's reasoning? They say that a loan document is considered as if it has already been collected, which bolsters the creditors' claim.
Art: Cry of the prophet Jeremiah on the Ruins of Jerusalem by Ilya Efimovich Efimovich Repin
Someone who is seriously ill has the same laws as a healthy person, and his sickbed will is invalid. Instead, he must gift his possessions in a regular way, that is, with money, a document, or an act of ownership for land, and with pulling to oneself for movables – this is the opinion of Rabbi Elazar. Rabbi Elazar disputes the principle discussed on the previous twenty pages that a seriously ill person can effect the transfer of his property.
Rabbi Eliezer says that if a seriously ill person gave his possessions away orally on Sabbath, his words are upheld since, on Sabbath, he may not write. Rabbi Eliezer is a third opinion. Rabbi Yehoshua says that if he can distribute his possessions orally on Sabbath, then all the more so he can do it on weekdays. Rabbi Yehoshua agrees with the previous twenty pages.
Art: The Use of Tears - The Love-Sick Maid by Richard Parkes Bonington
Since young people do not know the value of land, they can be easily deceived by money offers. The Sages, therefore, instituted that one can not sell land inherited from a father until one is twenty. In addition, to make a sale, one needs to be physically mature. This usually happens at 12 for girls and 13 for boys, but may come later.
One person in Bnei Brak sold land he inherited from his father and later died. The members of the father's family challenged the sale, saying that the seller had been a minor at the time of his death. Everyone admitted he was twenty, but the family claimed he did not have two pubic hairs.
Rabbi Akiva told them, "Firstly, you are not permitted to defile him through an examination. Secondly, it won't help since signs of maturity change after death."
Art: Double Portrait of a Brother and Sister by Cornelis Ketel
The rule "The mouth that forbids it is the mouth that allows it" can be illustrated as follows. In a case where a woman told the court that she was married but added that she divorced or that her husband died, her first statement makes it forbidden for her to marry other men, but the second one makes it allowed. If we believe the first statement, we should also believe the second one.
When one says, "(1) I did bequest you this gift, (2) but I was sick then, and now that I recovered that gift is invalid," we should follow the "mouth" rule and believe him. However, Rabbi Meir considers the gift document as valid without certification. If so, we know (1) from the document itself and do not believe the man on (2).
Art: The Sailor's Wedding by Richard Caton Woodville
A sickbed will ordinarily state that the donor wrote it "when he was sick and lying in bed," whereas the ordinary gift document generally specifies "while healthy."
Someone wrote a gift document but did not record that he was seriously ill or healthy, and then a dispute arose about the validity of the gift. The donor said, "I was sick when I wrote the document, and I have since recovered; hence, my recovery nullifies the gift," but the recipients said, "You were healthy, and the gift is therefore valid."
The giver must bring proof that he was seriously ill – these are the words of Rabbi Meir, but the Sages say that since recipients wish to collect from the giver, who is presently in possession of the property, they are the ones who must prove their claim.
Art: The Sick Bed by H. Lessing
If a seriously ill person drafted a sickbed will in which he distributed all his property, it takes effect after his death, and no further action is needed. What happens if he also performed a symbolic acquisition and wrote about it in his will?
Rav says that he is “riding on two steeds,” giving his will both the power of a sickbed bequest and the gift of a healthy person. Shmuel, however, says that he may have intended the acquisition to take effect after his death, and gifts cannot be given after death.
Here are the rules then:
* A formal acquisition done without explanation invalidates the will;
* A formal acquisition, explained to reinforce the bequest, makes the recipient feel good but is retractable upon the ill person's recovery;
* A written will, delivered to the recipient, together with a formal acquisition, makes it irrevocable.
Art: The Little Convalescent by Eastman Johnson
Rav Dimi bar Yosef's sister had an orchard. Whenever her health worsened, she would transfer the orchard to him as a sickbed gift, and when she recovered, she would retract the gift.
Once, she felt weak and sent a message to him, "Come, acquire the orchard from me," but Rav Dimi did not come. She sent a message: "Come, acquire it in any way you wish." Rav Dimi did go and asked her to give him only a portion and perform a formal act of acquisition, hoping to make the gift irreversible. She did all that, then recovered and reneged on the gift, but Rav Dimi did not want to return it.
She went to Rav Nachman, who ruled that since she said, "Woe, I am dying!" she made the gift only under the impression that she was dying and thus may still retract.
Art: Girl with a Red Hat by Johannes Vermeer
These categories of people are treated differently depending on whether they give away all or only some of their possessions.
* A seriously ill person – his gift (in case he recovers) is valid only if he distributed all that he had;
* A person's gift to his slave – the slave goes free, but only if he gets all of his master's possessions, for otherwise, the master may have kept the slave and with him the gift that he gave;
* If a man gives everything to his wife, he has only appointed her an administrator over his estate;
* A woman who sequesters her possessions by giving them to a third party when she gets married to keep them out of her husband's reach – if she gives all, she can get them back. Otherwise, it is a regular gift.
Art: A Convalescent by James Jacques Joseph Tissot
If a seriously ill person consecrates all his possessions to the Temple treasury and then recovers, does his bequest stand? Do we say that whenever the Temple Estate is involved, the person is likely to grant possession with complete resolve, and thus, the bequest stands? Or does he value his own interests more, and the gift is revocable if he recovers?
If you say that the gift to the Temple stands if he recovers, what if he declares all his belongings ownerless? Both the rich and the poor can avail themselves of his possessions, so his act is somewhat meritorious - does it stand if he recovers?
If you say that in the above case, the merit is not enough and he does not resolve to give completely, what if he distributes all only to the poor? Is there a complete resolve?
All these questions remain unanswered.
Art: Poor People on the Seashore by Pablo Picasso
If a seriously ill person announced that all of his possessions should go to a particular person but then changed his mind, saying that some possessions should go to someone else, what is the law? Has the ill person retracted his entire gift to the first person, or has he retracted only the part he explicitly willed to someone else?
If it counts as complete retraction, the first person receives nothing, whether the sick person dies or recovers, and the second person receives his share: if the sick person recovers, as a gift, and if he dies, as an inheritance.
However, if it is a partial retraction, then if the sick person dies, the two receive their shares, but if he recovers, both receive nothing - as in the case of a sick person who leaves something over.
The law follows the first possibility.
Art: The Sick Doctor by Jehan Georges Vibert
The intentions of a seriously ill person are assessed and then followed. This is Rabbi Shimon Ben Menasya's opinion, as seen below.
One whose son had gone abroad and he heard that his son died, and who wrote over all his possessions to others – and then his son came back – his gift is nevertheless valid, the assessment of his mind being irrelevant. Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya says, "His gift is not valid, because if he would have known that his son was alive, who would not have made the gift."
All agree that if he said "I was under impression that I had a son, but now I discovered that I don't have a son, and my possessions shall go to so-and-so" - and then it was discovered that his son is alive - that his gift is not valid.
Art: They did not expect him by Repin (И.Е.Репин - Не ждали!)
"All the days of a pauper are bad" - this is the Talmudist because he arduously toils, trying to understand the differences between different rulings. "But he of good heart has a continuous feast" – this is the Mishnaist, who just learns the rulings themselves – so says Rabbi Zeira. But Rava says the opposite - since the Mishnaist experiences greater frustration, not being able to rule on practical questions of law.
If a seriously ill person signed away all property to others but retained a little land for himself, his gift to others stands even if he should recover from his illness. Since he retained some land, he did not really expect to die, and his gift is a regular gift. However, if he gave away everything, this indicates that his gift was conditional upon him actually dying, and if he recovers, the gift does not stand.
Art: The Poor Poet by Carl Spitzweg
In Talmudic times, it was customary for friends of a groom to act as his groomsmen, that is, to bring him gifts in celebration of his wedding and to join him for seven-day wedding feasts. It was understood that the groom would reciprocate when his groomsmen celebrated their own weddings.
If some of the brothers performed as groomsmen during their father's lifetime – the father providing the necessary funds to do so - then when the original groom reciprocates with gifts of his own – they are returned to the common estate.
Five things were said about a groomsman's gift: its reciprocation is enforceable in court, it is returned only at the time of marriage, it does not involve any question of interest, the seventh year does not cancel it, and the firstborn does not take a double portion of it.
Art: Peasants at a Wedding Feast by Harmen HALS
If a man died and left adult and minor sons, and the adults improved the estate, their improvements go to the joint estate, since the estate was as yet undivided. However, if the adult sons said in court or some other public forum, "See what our father has left us," - that is, assess the total value and let us divide it, and "hereafter whatever improvements we make using the estate resources will be counted as done using our portion," the improvement accrues to them.
Rav Safra's father died, leaving money to Rav Safra and his minor brothers. Rav Safra did business with this money and realized profit. The brothers summoned him for adjudication before Rava, but Rava said, "Rav Safra is a Sage and a scholar. He would not stop his studies to work for others, so it is assumed that he worked for himself."
Art: Mr. Bannister Junior and Mr. Parsons as Scout and Sheepface in The Village Lawyer by Samuel de Wilde
If one says to the intended recipient, "Let you and the donkey acquire this gift," the recipient gets half (Rav Nachman), nothing (Rav Hamnuna), or all (Rav Sheshet).
Rav Sheshet's proof: if one separates the tithe from a vegetable with a bitter interior, he must add to his tithe from a sweet section. The sweet part is "you," and the bitter part is "the donkey," and since the tithe took effect, we see that the recipient gets all.
Talmud argues for Rav Sheshet: A man betrothed five women jointly with one basket of figs, and the Sages said that two sisters were not betrothed. This is the case of "you" - the three eligible women and "the donkey" - two sisters who are not eligible – and he got all he could get.
But the law here follows Rav Nachman.
Art: Still-Life with Figs by Luis Melendez
Said Rabbi Itzhak, in the name of Rabbi Yochanan, "If one grants possession to a fetus, the fetus does not acquire." And if you question this from the Mishna which validated such an acquisition, that Mishna was talking about one's own children. Since one feels especially close to them, his resolve to give is strong enough, but this is not so for someone else's children.
But what about a contradicting rule that "A one-year-old baby inherits and bequeaths," from which we understand that a fetus does not inherit? That rule is talking about a different situation – an inheritance that passes to the baby from his mother and from him - to his paternal brothers. This type of inheritance cannot pass through an unborn child.
Art: To Celebrate the Baby by Henri Rousseau
If one whose wife is pregnant says, "If my wife gives birth to a boy, he takes a hundred zuz ($5,000), and if to a girl, she takes two hundred zuz – the infants acquire the money. If she gives birth to a tumtum (a person of indeterminate gender), he does not get anything, but if he is the only child – he inherits all.
So the man prefers a daughter? But we learned that one should leave a son! Either he realizes that a daughter needs more, or he follows Rabbi Yehudah's opinion that a daughter is a blessing.
But how can an unborn child acquire a gift? This follows Rabbi Yossi's opinion that a fetus inherits and Rabbi Yochanan ben Berokah's opinion that a will made to the one who inherits is valid.
Art: Henri-François Riesener - Mother and Her Daughter
If the deceased left behind sons and daughters and a tumtum (a person of indeterminate gender, with genitals recessed and covered by flesh) – when the property is abundant, the males push the tumtum away to the females. Since it is unknown whether the tumtum is male or female, he cannot claim more than the lesser of the two portions. He thus receives support until maturity, like the daughters. When the property is meager, the females push him away to the males, and he receives nothing, like the other sons.
Art: Michelangelo Merisi da Caravaggio - Narcissus
If one dies and leaves behind sons and unmarried daughters, when the estate's property is abundant, the sons inherit, and the daughters are supported (food, clothing, and wedding expenses). When the estate's property is meager, the daughters are supported, and the sons go begging at the door.
According to Biblical law, a person survived by his sons and daughters is inherited only by his sons. The Sages, however, instituted that a man stipulate to his wife in her marriage contract (ketubah) that their daughters who survive him be entitled to support from his estate until they marry or reach full maturity.
Admon says, "Because I am male, do I lose?" Rabban Gamliel prefers his opinion, but the final law follows the first authority—the daughters take priority.
Art: John Richard Comyns of Hylands Essex With His Daughters by John Greenwood
If someone writes over his properties to another, and the recipient protests that he does not want the gift, the protest is valid, and the gift reverts back to the donor. The recipient claim is not spurious and is based on "one who hates gifts will live."
If the recipient was at first silent and later protested, his protest is invalid, and he remains in the possession of the gift.
If the donor asked a third party to acquire the gift on behalf of the recipient, the acquisition act is valid since it is assumed that most people want gifts. If the recipient was at first silent and then protested, then some say that he acquired the gift, but some say that perhaps he saw no need to protest until the gift actually reached his hands, and thus, the situation is in doubt.
Art: Neptune Offering Gifts to Venice (detail) by Giovanni Battista Tiepolo
If a father writes his properties over to his son "from today and after I die," and the son sells them during his father's lifetime and then dies, then Rabbi Yochanan says that the buyer does not acquire those properties. Resh Lakish says that the buyer does acquire them. Rabbi Yochanan considers the ownership of the rights to the produce tantamount to ownership of the property itself. Therefore, the father, who uses the property and is the primary owner, prevents the sale. Resh Lakish disagrees with this premise.
If one says, "My property shall go to you, and after you to so-and-so," then the first can sell it, and the second has no recourse. However, initially, the first one should not sell it. One who gives him advice to sell, since after the fact the second one has no recourse, is called a "smart bad person."
Art: Death of Socrates by Jacques-Louis David
While a seriously ill person can transmit his last-will instructions orally, though not in writing, a healthy person lacks both of these options. However, one way to accomplish property transfer is to give over the title to the possessions now but the right to use them only after death.
When one writes his properties over to his sons for use after death, he must indicate this by including the clause "from today and after death," - says Rabbi Yehudah. But Rabbi Yossi says that it is enough to write "after death," and the date on the document indicates that he means "from today."
In such a case, the father cannot sell the properties completely because they are written over to his son, and the son cannot sell them because they are in the father's possession.
Art: Sorrow by Emile Friant
If a person dies and a sickbed will is found tied to his thigh so that there is no suspicion of forgery, the will still has no legal validity.
Unless a formal acquisition act was made before the person's death, his property automatically passes to the rightful heirs defined by the Torah. The Sages, however, decreed that a seriously ill person can transfer his property to others by verbal declaration alone. They did it out of concern that a seriously ill person, fearing that his end was near, might deteriorate further if he were unable to arrange his affairs. Thus, his words take effect, and the gift takes effect upon his death.
This person, who prepared a will, did not use the verbal declaration method above, and after his death, neither he nor his documents can effect acquisitions.
Art: The Sick Child by Edvard Munch
If one says, "This is my son," he is believed. What is the practical consequence of this ruling? If it is to make him inherit, then this is obvious since the father could have given him a present. Rather, it is to make the man's wife free from the obligation of levirate marriage to his brothers.
If one says, "This is my brother," - the other brothers don't have to believe him and share their inheritance with the newcomer. The one who recognized the brother, however, is obligated to share in the inheritance. If the newly known brother dies, his properties revert to the one who identified him but are not shared with other brothers. However, if the new brother inherits or acquires new properties, the other brothers inherit them. How could it be? Because they said, "We don't know."
Art: Sam Weller and his Father by Harold Copping
If one writes over his estate to others and leaves his children without a legacy, what he has done is done; that is, his gift is valid, but the spirit of the Sages is not pleased with him. By disinheriting his children, he usurps the order of succession ordained by the Torah.
Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: "If his children were not conducting themselves properly, he is remembered for good." Does Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel explain the ruling or argue against it?
The sons of one man did not conduct themselves properly, and he left all his possessions to Yonathan ben Uziel, who, in turn, sold a third, donated another third to the Temple, and returned the rest to the sons of the donor. Shammai came after him with his stick, but Yonathan proved to Shammai that he had done right.
Art: Francis Wheatley - A Family Group
If one writes in his will that he is giving all his possessions to his wife, he has only made her an administrator over his estate; she does not actually acquire it.
The Sages determined that a man would not strip his sons of their entire inheritance; therefore, it is assumed that he is merely appointing her as an administrator because he wants them to treat her more respectfully. The administration lasts only while the children are minors. The ruling applies only if he left over all his property to his wife, but if he left anything to his sons, the gift to his wife was genuine.
Art: Ary Scheffer - Marie Joseph Marquise de La Fayette, on his Deathbed
