Question regarding the firstborn inheritance
Hello Rabbi Avraham,
I wanted to ask you a question about the birthright.
My late father passed away about ten months ago and left a respectable inheritance to me and my older brother. I converted to Judaism a little over a year ago, and my brother is still secular (for now). Six months ago we went to a lawyer to issue an inheritance order in a civil court (not a rabbinical one), and the inheritance order states that the property is divided 50/50. I found some kind of responsa online that says that if a first-born has voluntarily agreed to litigate in the courts, he is bound by their ruling. Below is the link to the responsa:
My question is whether I can rely on this and say that according to this, the eldest son waived his share of the birthright by agreeing to the issuance of an inheritance order in a civil court.
I should point out that my brother is unaware of the issue of the birthright inheritance, and does not demand it, but I am finding this out to know if I should bring him his share of the birthright, even if he does not recognize his right.
Furthermore, I wanted to add in this context that I have read in several places that it is possible to argue that Kim is of the opinion of the jurists who believe that one should not be forced to sign without compensation,
And another thing, those who believe that the debtor must sign the law of restitution of loss, then the law of restitution of loss for a secular person or for someone who is not in the habit of returning losses is questionable.
Best regards,
Have a good week.
First, it is difficult for me to accept a waiver of a right when the waiver is unaware of this right. This is a waiver by mistake (because perhaps if he had known about his right he would not have agreed). Therefore, in my opinion, you need to inform him that this is the situation according to the halakha (meaning that he deserves 2/3), and if he gives you a gift (meaning agrees to an equal division) then that is of course perfectly fine.
I didn’t understand your comments in the second letter. What does “sign without compensation” mean? What is this about?
The law of restitution of a lost property (which I don’t understand how we arrived at here) towards a secular person is not in any doubt. First, even secular people today return lost property. Second, it is usually a baby that was taken, and therefore there is no difference between a secular and a religious person in terms of a positive relationship between a person and his fellow man. Third, state law requires restitution of lost property and the law requires it halachically (in matters of money). And fourth, if I understood correctly that you are referring to the obligation to disclose to him his right to multiply as if it were restitution of a lost property, that is simply not true. You are depriving him of his right to multiply, and not just not returning a lost property to him. Kim Lee’s argument does not belong here in any way.
All the best,
Michi
First, thank you very much for taking the time to answer me.
I understand your answer and accept it.
I wanted to ask about the matter of appropriate and retained. Shortly before my father's death, he learned of an inheritance that was hidden from him by relatives. He began proceedings to return the hidden property (parts of apartments). The process was only completed after his death, when at the end of the process the parts of the apartments were converted into one apartment in Petah Tikva. My question is whether this property is considered appropriate or retained. On the one hand, it is real estate, and on the other hand, it may have been considered a debt and therefore appropriate. Also, as part of the compensation arrangement, we received financial compensation for the rent that was hidden from us for the duration of the concealment. The question is whether the rent is also considered appropriate or retained?
Best regards,
I am not familiar with the details of inheritance laws, and it is better to ask someone who is familiar with them.
In short, in Shulchan Chom Si Recha 63 it was written that the father's inheritance is like a possession unless the father's testator dies after the father himself (only then is it appropriate). And if this inheritance is with others, then it is no worse than a deposit, and a deposit is considered like a possession and not appropriate. And regarding the rent, see the dispute in Katsuvah, section 2.
Further to the email,
I understood that there are jurists who believe that the law of the kingdom also applies to the division of inheritances, so perhaps Kim Lee can be argued in their opinion.
Indeed, in principle, I think it is possible to claim Kim Lee in inheritance.
But Kim Lee's claim is made by a holder. The question is whether you are called a holder. After all, on the side that the money came to you illegally, you are a usurper and not a holder. Perhaps there is a seizure here after the doubt has arisen. All of this brings us to questions of seizure and making one's own judgment. Simply put, it is impossible to make one's own judgment where there is a disagreement among the jurists. On the contrary, the one who seizes is the one who takes from the holder. Although it is questionable whether the fact that the state gave you the money can perhaps make you a holder, is itself a de-kingdom judgment.
All of this requires extensive investigation, and I do not have the time to do so at the moment.
I understand that the de facto situation today is that even rabbinical courts give some part of the inheritance to daughters, and I also read in Yalkut Yosef that, based on this, I have established that daughters can receive some compensation from the inheritance.
But in any case, what interests me more is the question about the apartment in Petah Tikva (you may have missed this email because I sent another email immediately after it, it appears above in the correspondence)
Here is a quote from Yalkut Yosef. It is possible that according to this I am entitled to receive 10 percent of the birthright share:
According to the Holy Torah and Halacha, daughters do not inherit from their father with sons, but if the sons request that the court need them to give them an inheritance order, and the sons want to give up their share in favor of the daughters, so that they can share the inheritance with them, they will approach the rabbinical court in the city, and buy it from them as an outright property or as an incidental property, according to Torah law. And sons cannot force daughters to sign a waiver of their share in the inheritance, so that the court can issue an inheritance order to sons, but daughters can claim compensation for signing it. The daughters' ability to claim this is in line with the words of the jurists who say that they cannot be forced to give up their share. Therefore, sons must give financial compensation so that they agree to sign a waiver of their share in the inheritance, up to ten percent of the share that would have been due to them according to state law. [Response to Yechva Da'at, Part 4, Section 7. Vayya Umar, Part 9, Section Choshen Mishpat, Section 8, Page 16]
I wrote to you that in my opinion this apartment, as an inheritance whose testator died before your father, is not worthy but rather is held (from the Shulchan
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
