skip to main |
skip to sidebar
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
