Jewish Law Logo Jewish Law - Examining Halacha, Jewish Issues and Secular Law

Halacha and the Conventional
Last Will and Testament
Judah Dick

Judah Dick - Asst. Corp. Counsel, City of New York: Smicha, Yeshiva Torah Vodaath

  1. Bava Bathra 110n; Rambam, Laws of Inheritance, Ch. 1(6), Tur and Shulchan Aruch 276(4).
  2. Kesubos 52b; Rambam, Laws of Marriage, ch. 20(1) etc. Tur and Shulchan Aruch, Even Ho'ezer 113(1).
  3. Bava Bathra 139b; Rambam, Laws of Inheritance, Ch. 6(1), Tur and Shulchan Aruch, Ibid, Ch. 290.
    Interestingly, although several ancient civilizations recognized the power to devise property by will, especially Roman Law, English Common Law prior to the enactment of the Statute of Wills in the reign of Henry the Eighth (32 Henry VIII Ch. 1) did not permit devises of real property and restructure devises of personal property. Thus, the courts have held that a state may regulate the disposition of property after death and prohibit devisors to certain classes such as aliens, corporations, and even the United States government. The U.S. Fox 94 U.S. 315, 320 (1876); U.S. Perkins 163 U.S. 625, 628 (1895); see also Bigelow Theory of Post Mortem disposition; Rise of the English Will, II, Harvard Law Review 69 (1897).
  4. Ibid, Halachos 2-3, based on Bava Bathra 130b; Tur and Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat, Ch. 281 (1).
  5. Bava Bathra 133b; Rambam, Ibid, Halacha (II).
  6. Bava Bathra 148b; Rambam, Laws of Bestowals and Gifts, Ch. 8-12.
  7. Bava Bathra 135b.
  8. Bava Bathra, Tosafos 136b; Tur and Shulchan Aruch, Ibid, ch. 257.
    Our proposed sample will is based in part on text suggested by Rashba in responsum #106 attributed to Ramban.
  9. Bava Metzia 46a, Tur and Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat 203, 209.
  10. Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat, Ch. 204(4).
  11. Choshen Mishpat 251(2) and 211(6).
  12. Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat 252, based on Kesubos 69b.
  13. Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat, Ibid. See also extensive discussion on this subject in Responsa, Maharsham, Vol.2, 224.
  14. See responsa Binyan Zion of Rabbi Jacob Ettlinger, addendum #24, and discussion in note 29a intra.
  15. Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat 257(7).
  16. Shulchan Aruch, Even Ho'ezer 108(3), Choshen Mishpat 281(7).
  17. See Tumim, Kesos Hachoshen and Nesivos Hamishpat on Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat, Ch. 60(6).
  18. Ramo, Choshen Mishpat, Ch. 352(2) and Kesos Hachoshen, Ibid.
  19. See Kesos Hachoshen and Nesivos Hamishpat, Ibid., and Tur, Yore De'ah 258(13).
  20. Kesubos 61b; Ramo, Yore De'ah 249.
  21. Henry Ford was able to keep Ford Motor Co. in the family by leaving most of the (non-voting) stock he owned to a charitable foundation which perpetuated his name.
  22. Bach, on Tur, Yore De'ah, Ch. 249, Aruch Hashulchan, Choshen Mishpat, 282(3).

    There are some who would limit charitable requests to fifty percent or thirty-three percent - Sheiltot 64, Sheira Knesset Hagedola, Yore De'ah 249. In any event something should always be left for the legal heirs - Shita Mekubetzes, Kesubos 50, in the name of Disciples of Rabbi Jonah, and Meiri, Kesubos 50a.

  23. Beth Yosef on Tur, Choshen Mishpat 27, citing response of Rashba; Shach, Choshen Mishpat, 73(39). See also Beth Yosef on Tur, Choshen Mishpat 369.
  24. Igrot Moshe, Even Ho'ezer, 109 (Volume 1).
  25. Talmud Yerushalmi, Bava Meizia, on Ch. 7, Talmud Bavli, Bava Metzia, 74a; Tur and Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat, 201(2).
  26. Responsum 21 of Rav Yecheskel of Laveda in Sefer Ikre Hadat on Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim. See critique of this view in Responsa Maharsham, Vol.2 #204. See also responsa of Maharam Mintz, #66.
  27. Responsa, Chasam Sofer, Choshen Mishpat, 66; Responsa, Radvaz; Vol.2, Ch. 278;
  28. Responsa, Rosh 13(2); Maharam Rotenberg in Notes of Mordechai on Sabbath 472-3.
  29. Maharam Rotenberg cited in Mordechai on Bava Bathra, 591. See also lengthy discussion in Responsum 21, Ikre Hadat, Supra. See also responsa Maharil (Rabbi Yaakov Molin) 75, who suggests that Maharam distinguishes between terminology used by testator. In his view, a request for a third person such as "he shall take or receive" is valid, whereas a directive to an agent to give or deliver to a third person is not valid in a will, but may be valid under the rule of mitzva lekayeim divrei ha'mes. Maharsham, responsum #224, concurs with this interpretation.
  30. Ibid.
  31. Responsa, Perach Mate Aharon, Vol. 1 60; Responsa, Ikre Hadat 21, Supra; See generally, Magen Avraham, Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim, Ch. 690(22) and Responsa, Chasam Sofer, Orach Chaim 159.
  32. Responsa, Rashba, Vol.3, 67, and Vol.4, 7; Tur and Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat 250, (3) based on Bava Bathra 149a; Ibid 113(2) and 207(16).
  33. See responsa Maharsham, Supra, who collected views of all predecessors and suggested novel views on the subject, as well as Responsa Binyan Zion, Supra. Maharsham also suggests that Kibud Av may be considered independent grounds for enforcing a will where the legal heirs are the testator's children. He also rejects the contention that failure to deliver a will during one's lifetime to a third party is fatal to its validity, since that rule only applies to a will signed by a scribe and witnesses, on behalf of the testator, but not to one signed by the testator himself.
  34. Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat, 195(3).
  35. Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat, 81(17); 1 Piske Din, Rabbanon, pg. 112.
  36. See published letters of Rabbi Chaim Ozer Grodzinsky, (Michtevei Achiezer) vol. 1, no. 25.
  37. Shulchan Aroch, Choshen Mishpat 282, based on Bava Bathra 133a.
  38. Responsa of Tashbaz, Vol.3 No.147, cited by Ksos Hachoshen, 352(2). See also Responsa, Chasan Sofer, Choshen Mishpat, 151.
Notes Page
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | Notes

Jewish Law Home Page

DISCLAIMER
Previous Page Article Index
 Notes