skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Which is to be followed, a ruling issued by a Sage during learning or his practical ruling in court?
Neither. While learning, the Sage may not have considered all aspects of the matter. On the other hand, a practical ruling may be misunderstood by the observer as to the reason behind it. Rather, the Sage has to declare that the law agrees with a particular view and that it is to be followed in practice.
Is the ruling about changes in inheritance true for someone on his deathbed, because of "on the day when he makes his sons inherit," or even for one who is young and healthy? Rebbi said (and some say ruled in an actual case) that it also works for a healthy person. The two reports disagree on whether "is theory or practice more important."
Art: Baron Mikhail Petrovich Klodt von Jurgensburg - Beside a Sick Woman
If one says, "Let so-and-so inherit me," where there is a daughter who will survive him, or if he says, "Let my daughter inherit me," where there is a son who will survive him – he has said nothing, that is, his words are not effective, since he made a stipulation contrary to what is written in the Torah.
However, if he increased the portion of one son among the other sons, or one daughter among the other daughters, or completely eliminated the portion of one son, leaving everything for the other sons, his words stand. Thus, one can change the portion of those in the same inheritance order. This ruling contradicts the one cited earlier; indeed, it is the opinion of Rabbi Yochanan ben Berokah and is the one accepted in practice.
Art: Carl Larsson - Mother And Daughter
If a person awards his property to several people in turn by saying, "My properties shall be given to you upon my death, and after you die, so-and-so shall inherit it, and after he dies, so-and-so shall inherit it," the law is as follows:
When the first beneficiary dies, the second beneficiary acquires the property. When the second beneficiary dies, the third beneficiary acquires the property. If the second beneficiary dies during the lifetime of the first one, the property reverts to the heirs of the first beneficiary upon his death.
Even though the award was referred to as "inheritance," it was only valid because he "gave" to the first one. Thus, when the second beneficiary died, he could not "give" anything to the third one, and the regular order of inheritance was restored.
Art: Sir Lawrence Alma-Tadema - A Family Group
Rabbi Abba sent several rulings to Rav Yosef. The last of them deals with inheritance.
* If a defendant made an extralegal offer, like "Swear that this is your slave and take him," - he cannot retract.
* A third-generation cousin can testify regarding a second-generation cousin.
* One who knew a testimony about a land boundary but became blind cannot testify about it anymore.
* If one says, "My wife shall take a share in my estate like one of my sons," - it is as he says. The husband certainly can give her a gift. However, she only takes a share in his current properties, not in any subsequent acquisitions.
Art: Gabriel METSU - The Hunter's Gift
A man is believed to say about his son that he is a firstborn, even if it was presumed to be otherwise. The phrase "he must recognize the firstborn" is superfluous, and it is interpreted to mean that the father can identify the firstborn to others, that is, help them recognize the firstborn.
If two sons were born in hiding, and it is not clear who the firstborn is, they can appoint each other as agents against other brothers and together win the portion of the firstborn – so was Rava's advice. They told Rava that even though it sounded logical, the Torah insisted on definite knowledge about a firstborn. Rabbi Yannai explained this to be valid only when the firstborn was known and then mixed up. The next day, Rava publicly announced: "The statement that I made previously was an error on my part."
Art: Léon Augustin Lhermitte Woman with Child and Two Children
If one says, "So-and-so, my firstborn son, shall not take a double portion of my estate," or "So-and-so, my son, shall not inherit with his brothers," - he has said nothing, that is, his directives are not followed, because he has made a stipulation contrary to what is written in the Torah.
However, suppose one distributes his property before his death, increasing the share of one and decreasing the share of the other or making the portion of the firstborn equal to those of the other brothers. In that case, his words stand because he conveyed the portions of his estate as gifts rather than bequests.
If at any point in a document, whether at the beginning, the middle, or the end, one wrote that the awards are conveyed as "gifts," even though the document also contains language of inheritance, his words stand.
Art: Father is at the Helm by William McTaggart
A certain person told his family, "My property shall go to my grandmother upon my death, and after her lifetime, it shall go to my heirs." The donor had an only daughter, who was married, but she died during the lifetime of her husband and her father's grandmother, and then the husband came forward and claimed the estate.
Ran Huna said, "To my heirs" means "even to the heirs of my heirs," and so the husband inherits. Ran Anan said, "To my heirs" means "but not to the heirs of my heirs," so the husband does not inherit. And the law is like Rav Anan, but not for his reason. Rather, the husband does not inherit here because it is only a prospective asset for him since the grandmother could have prevented the inheritance by selling the property.
Art: Grandmother and Granddaughter by Lovis Corinth
