Inheritance conditions
Is it permissible to make a condition on my or my wife’s inheritance so that it is in accordance with Israeli law (and not in accordance with Torah law)? I ask because I came across a statement in the Mishnah Torah: “Any condition on an inheritance is void, even if it is money, as it says in it ‘to establish a law’.” And the Rabbi said that it is not possible to make a condition on something that did not come into existence.
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
0 Answers
Indeed, it is impossible to condition an inheritance, since the inheritance is carried out automatically after your death and not by virtue of your actions. You can only condition something that you create. At most, you can give a gift from life. What is ruled that in a matter of money, you can condition on what is written in the Torah – this is only in the proprietary result of one’s actions.
——————————————————————————————
Asks:
I found two will versions online:
http://www.daat.ac.il/DAAT/mishpach/tsavaa2-2.htm
http://www.daat.ac.il/DAAT/mishpach/tsavaa1-2.htm
Are these wordings generally correct? In addition, it says: “Everything I give to the beneficiaries according to this deed, I give as a complete and complete gift, from today and one hour before my death.” I did not understand the meaning of the words: “from today and one hour before my death.” Was the purchase made from today? Or from one hour before my death? In addition, regarding the purchase, incidentally arranged there, is it really necessary to raise an object and give it away? Or are these just words that express the finality of the mind?
In addition, is it correct to say that the inheritance laws of the laws of the State of Israel are more binding than the inheritance laws of the Torah because the laws of the State of Israel contain a kind of implied consent or something like that?
——————————————————————————————
Rabbi:
As far as I can see, these formulas are fine.
The meaning of this wording, according to the accepted practice, is that the act of ownership that is now made grants the body to the heir and the assets are granted to him an hour before the testator’s death (I think there is also room for understanding that this is a property that is built gradually from now on and is finally settled an hour before death, etc.).
Indeed, the levy must be ordered. The bill and its witnesses only indicate that it was actually done.
Just as inheritance laws cannot be conditioned, neither can custom or royal law change them. It’s the same mechanism.
Now I think that perhaps the king can confiscate the halakhic heir’s wealth after it has reached him and transfer it to the legal heir. But it is doubtful whether this is even possible, because he is not doing this for the needs of the monarchy and it is not clear whether there is a dina demalkota here. This still requires thought.
——————————————————————————————
Asks:
Are the assets (including those that have not yet been born) considered in my possession until an hour before death, and am I permitted to make a will with them? Also, with regard to the portion of property in which there is no ownership seized, it seems that the possibility of cancellation is not indicated: it is written – “I undertake to the above beneficiaries from now on, both by vow and by way of lien, in such a way that I am already obligated to pay any amount,” Can the vow and lien be canceled in the event of divorce, for example? Regarding the suder, to whom should it belong, and who should raise it? And should it be returned.
Also, is this will valid for descendants who have not yet been born (or only for those who existed at the time the will was signed).
——————————————————————————————
Rabbi:
When a gift is made from the day and hour before my death, the body passes to the buyer and the fruits remain with the donor until an hour before his death. This defines the rights of use.
A vow is a sacred vow. As far as I know, a bond cannot be annulled. Although if divorces really do occur, it can be argued that Adeta Dehaki did not commit, and even if he did not stipulate, this is like the things in his heart and in the heart of every person (like a person who sells his property Adeta to Misk, 1999, Kiddushin 44 and 55). But this is a complicated issue, and I agree.
In the case of jealousy over the purchase of a sudar, the halakhic ruling is that one buys with the buyer’s possessions. It is possible through a third person who gives the sudar to the buyer so that he can buy with it (like the rabbi at a kiddushin who gives his sudar). After the purchase is complete, the sudar is returned to its owner (unless he does not want it).
There is a problem with giving to fetuses, and certainly to those who are not even pregnant yet (giving to someone who has not yet come into the world). It must be remembered that the gift is made now.
——————————————————————————————
Asks:
I don’t know how it is customary to regulate matters of inheritance distribution in the religious sector, but is it really customary for only sons to inherit and for the eldest son to inherit twice as much? Or is it customary for the inheritance to be divided according to Israeli law (and then it turns out that the wife and daughters hold the sons’ assets by robbery – unless they are forgiven)?
——————————————————————————————
Rabbi:
Some people agree and leave it to the law. But according to the halacha, this does not apply (as I explained). Of course, if the law is followed and the heirs forgive Zalz for some of them, then there is no problem. The problem is if one of them does not forgive, then the others are robbers. Anyone who wants to make sure that it will be valid according to the halacha gives a gift from life like the bills you saw.
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
