Ownerless Property and Gifts Chapter 10

שְׁכִיב מֵרַע שֶׁאָמַר תְּנוּ מָנֶה לִפְלוֹנִי וּמֵת. יִתְּנוּ לְאַחַר מִיתָה. שֶׁדִּבְרֵי שְׁכִיב מֵרַע כִּכְתוּבִין וְכִמְסוּרִין דָּמוּ. וְאֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין שֶׁמָּא עַל מָנֶה שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ קָבוּר הוּא אוֹמֵר:

When a sh'chiv me'ra says: "Give a maneh to so and so," the maneh should be given after the dying man's death. The rationale is that the words of a sh'chiv me'ra are considered as if they have been recorded in a legal document, and that the property concerned has already been transferred. We do not suspect that the sh'chiv me'ra was referring to a buried maneh.

וְכֵן שְׁכִיב מֵרַע שֶׁאָמַר הַלְוָאָה אוֹ פִּקָּדוֹן שֶׁיֵּשׁ לִי בְּיַד פְּלוֹנִי תְּנוּ אוֹתָהּ לִפְלוֹנִי דְּבָרָיו קַיָּמִין וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לְמַעֲמַד שְׁלָשְׁתָּן. וְכֵן אִם אָמַר תְּנוּ שְׁטַר פְּלוֹנִי לִפְלוֹנִי זָכָה בְּמַה שֶּׁיֵּשׁ בַּשְּׁטָר. וּכְאִלּוּ כָּתַב וּמָסַר אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא מָשַׁךְ הַשְּׁטָר. וְאֵין הַיּוֹרֵשׁ יָכוֹל לִמְחל שְׁטָר זֶה שֶׁנָּתַן בְּמַתְּנַת שְׁכִיב מֵרַע. וּמִפְּנֵי מָה הַמּוֹכֵר אוֹ נוֹתֵן שְׁטַר חוֹב לַחֲבֵרוֹ וְחָזַר וּמְחָלוֹ הַיּוֹרֵשׁ מָחוּל וּשְׁכִיב מֵרַע שֶׁנָּתַן שְׁטַר חוֹב אֵין הַיּוֹרֵשׁ יָכוֹל לִמְחל. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁקִּנְיַן הָרְאָיָה בִּשְׁטָר מִדִּבְרֵיהֶם לְפִיכָךְ הַיּוֹרֵשׁ עֲדַיִן זֶה הַשְּׁטָר שֶׁלּוֹ הוּא מִן הַתּוֹרָה וּמוֹחֲלוֹ. וּמַתְּנַת שְׁכִיב מֵרַע אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהִיא מִדִּבְרֵיהֶם עָשׂוּ אוֹתָהּ כְּשֶׁל תּוֹרָה. וּכְאִלּוּ קָנָה מָמוֹן שֶׁבַּשְּׁטָר מִן הַתּוֹרָה וְהִגִּיעַ לְיָדוֹ וְלֹא נִשְׁאַר לַיּוֹרֵשׁ בּוֹ קִנְיָן. וּלְפִיכָךְ אֵינוֹ מוֹחֵל:

Similarly, if a sh'chiv me'ra states: "I have loaned money..." or "...entrusted an object to so and so; give it to this and this person," his words are binding, and a ma'amad sh'loshtam is not required. Similarly, if a sh'chiv me'ra says: "Give so and so this particular promissory note," the recipients acquire the debt mentioned in the promissory note, as if the sh'chiv me'ra wrote the transfer on the promissory note and gave it to the intended recipient, even though the promissory note was not actually transferred. An heir does not have the right to waive payment of a promissory note that was given as a matnat sh'chiv me'ra. Why is that when a person sells or gives a promissory note to a colleague, and an heir waives payment, the waiver is binding, while when a sh'chiv me'ra apportions a promissory note as a matnat sh'chiv me'ra, an heir cannot waive payment. The rationale is that the transfer of a promissory note is a Rabbinical ordinance. Therefore, according to Scriptural Law, the promissory note still belongs to the heir. Thus, his waiver of it is of consequence. The transfer of a gift given by a sh'chiv me'ra is also a Rabbinic ordinance. Nevertheless in this instance, our Sages reinforced their decision and conveyed upon it the power of Scriptural Law. Thus, it is as if the recipient acquired the money mentioned in the promissory note according to Scriptural Law, and the money already reached his possession. Thus, the heir no longer possesses any right to it. Therefore, he cannot waive its payment.

שְׁכִיב מֵרַע שֶׁאָמַר מָנֶה לִפְלוֹנִי בְּיָדִי. אִם אָמַר תְּנוּ נוֹתְנִין. לֹא אָמַר תְּנוּ אֵין נוֹתְנִין. שֶׁמָּא לֹא אָמַר מָנֶה יֵשׁ לִפְלוֹנִי בְּיָדִי אֶלָּא כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יֹאמְרוּ עַל יוֹרְשָׁיו שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהֶן מָמוֹן:

The following rules apply when a sh'chiv me'ra states: "There is a maneh belonging to so and so in my possession." If he says: "Give it to him," it should be given to him. If he does not make such a statement, it should not be given to him. We suspect that perhaps he made his original statement only so that it would not be said that his heirs are wealthy.

לְפִיכָךְ אִם אָמַר זֶה דֶּרֶךְ הוֹדָאָה וְלֹא הָיָה שָׁם חֲשַׁשׁ הַעֲרָמָה. נוֹתְנִין אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא אָמַר תְּנוּ:

Therefore, if the sh'chiv me'ra made the statement as a sincere acknowledgement, and there was no suspicion of subterfuge, the money should be given to the person mentioned, even though the sh'chiv me'ra did not explicitly say that it should be given to him.

כַּיּוֹצֵא בּוֹ רָאוּ אֶת אֲבִיהֶם שֶׁהִטְמִין מָעוֹת בְּשִׁדָּה תֵּבָה וּמִגְדָּל וְאָמַר שֶׁל פְּלוֹנִי הֵן. שֶׁל מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי הֵן. אִם כְּמוֹסֵר דְּבָרָיו קַיָּמִין. אִם כְּמַעֲרִים לֹא אָמַר כְּלוּם:

Similarly, the following rules apply if witnesses observe a father hiding money in a drawer, a chest or a tower, and he says: "They belong to so and so," or "They are ma'aser sheni." If it appears that he is conveying his desires for the use of the money, his words are upheld. If it appears that he is being deceptive, his statements are of no consequence.

וְכֵן אִם בָּא אֶחָד וְאָמַר לָהֶם אֲנִי רָאִיתִי אֶת אֲבִיכֶן שֶׁהִטְמִין מָעוֹת בְּשִׁדָּה תֵּבָה וּמִגְדָּל וְאָמַר שֶׁל פְּלוֹנִי הֵם. שֶׁל מַעֲשֵׂר הֵן. אִם הָיוּ טְמוּנִין בַּבַּיִת לֹא אָמַר כְּלוּם. בַּשָּׂדֶה דְּבָרָיו קַיָּמִין. כְּלָלוֹ שֶׁל דָּבָר כָּל שֶׁאִלּוּ יָכוֹל לִטּל דְּבָרָיו קַיָּמִין וְאִם לָאו לֹא אָמַר כְּלוּם:

The Rabbis also discussed a similar situation. If a person came and told sons: "I saw your father hide money in a drawer, a chest or a tower, and he says: "It belongs to so and so," or "It is ma'aser." If the money is hidden in the sons' house, his statements are of no consequence. If it is in a field, his words should be upheld. The general principle is that whenever the witness could have taken the money if he had wanted to, his words are upheld. If he could not have, his statements are of no consequence.

הֲרֵי שֶׁהָיָה מִצְטַעֵר עַל מָעוֹת שֶׁהִנִּיחַ לוֹ אָבִיו וְלֹא יָדַע הֵיכָן הֶחְבִּיאָם וְאָמְרוּ לוֹ בַּחֲלוֹם כָּךְ וְכָךְ הֵם בְּמָקוֹם פְּלוֹנִי הֵן וְשֶׁל פְּלוֹנִי הֵן וְשֶׁל מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי הֵן. וּמְצָאָן בְּמָקוֹם פְּלוֹנִי שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר לוֹ וּבַמִּנְיָן שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר לוֹ. זֶה הָיָה מַעֲשֶׂה וְאָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים דִּבְרֵי חֲלוֹמוֹת לֹא מַעֲלִין וְלֹא מוֹרִידִין:

An incident occurred when a person was upset because of money that he knew that his father had left him, but he did not know where his father had hid it. He was told in a dream: "There was so and so much money. They are in this and this place, but they belong to so and so," or "...but they are ma'aser sheni." He found the exact sum of money in the place that was told him. The question was brought before the Sages and they said: "Words from dreams neither avail nor impair."

שְׁכִיב מֵרַע שֶׁהוֹדָה שֶׁיֵּשׁ לִפְלוֹנִי בְּיָדוֹ מָנֶה וְאָמְרוּ יְתוֹמִים חָזַר וְאָמַר לָנוּ אָבִינוּ פְּרַעְתִּיו נֶאֱמָנִין וְנִשְׁבָּעִין עַל זֶה שְׁבוּעַת הֶסֵּת:

When a sh'chiv me'ra acknowledged that he owes so and so a maneh, and afterwards, the orphans state: "At a later date, our father told us that he paid the debt," their word is accepted. They must, however, take a sh'vuat hesset to confirm their claim.

אָמַר תְּנוּ וְאָמְרוּ יְתוֹמִים חָזַר וְאָמַר לָנוּ אָבִינוּ פְּרַעְתִּיו אֵין נֶאֱמָנִין:

If, however, the sh'chiv me'ra said "Give the maneh to so and so" when making the acknowledgement his statements cannot be retracted. Even if the orphans state: "At a later date, our father told us that he paid the debt," their word is not accepted.

אָמַר מָנֶה לִפְלוֹנִי (בְּיָדִי) וְאָמְרוּ יְתוֹמִין נָתַנְנוּ אֵין נֶאֱמָנִין. שֶׁהֲרֵי לֹא אָמַר תְּנוּ וּמִנַּיִן יָדְעוּ שֶׁחַיָּבִין לִתֵּן:

If a sh'chiv me'ra says: "I owe so and so a maneh" and after his death the heirs say: "We gave it to him," their statements are not accepted. Since the sh'chiv me'ra did not say: "Give it," how would they know that they were obligated to give it?

אָמַר תְּנוּ וְאָמְרוּ יְתוֹמִים נָתַנְנוּ נֶאֱמָנִין וְנִשְׁבָּעִין שְׁבוּעַת הֶסֵּת שֶׁנָּתְנוּ:

If the dying man said: "Give so and so the money owed him," and the heirs claim to have paid the debt, the heirs are believed. They must, however, take a sh'vuat hesset.

שְׁכִיב מֵרַע שֶׁנָּתַן מָנֶה לְאֶחָד וְאָמַר לוֹ הוֹלֵךְ מָנֶה זוֹ לִפְלוֹנִי וְהָלַךְ וּמְצָאוֹ שֶׁמֵּת. אִם קַיָּם הָיָה בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁנָּתַן לוֹ הַשְּׁכִיב מֵרַע. יִנָּתְנוּ לְיוֹרְשֵׁי מִי שֶּׁנִּשְׁתַּלְּחוּ לוֹ. שֶׁדִּבְרֵי שְׁכִיב מֵרַע כִּכְתוּבִין וְכִמְסוּרִין הֵן. וְאִם לֹא הָיָה קַיָּם יַחְזְרוּ לְיוֹרְשֵׁי מְשַׁלֵּחַ שֶׁאֵין קִנְיָן לְמֵת:

The following rules apply when a sh'chiv me'ra gives a maneh to a third party and tells him: "Bring this maneh to so and so," and the third party goes to the designated recipient, but finds that he has died. If the recipient was alive at the time the sh'chiv me'ra gave the money to the third party, he should give it to the heirs of the intended recipient. The rationale is that the words of a sh'chiv me'ra are considered as if they have been recorded in a legal document, and the object concerned already transferred. If the intended recipient was not alive at that time, the third party should return the money to the heirs of the principal, for a deceased person cannot acquire property.

שְׁכִיב מֵרַע שֶׁאָמַר תְּנוּ מָאתַיִם זוּז לִפְלוֹנִי וּשְׁלֹשׁ מֵאוֹת זוּז לִפְלוֹנִי וְאַרְבַּע מֵאוֹת זוּז לִפְלוֹנִי. אֵין אוֹמְרִין הַקּוֹדֵם בַּשְּׁטָר זָכָה. לְפִיכָךְ אִם לֹא הִנִּיחַ תְּשַׁע מֵאוֹת חוֹלְקִין הַנִּמְצָא לְפִי מַה שֶּׁכָּתַב לָהֶן. וְאִם יָצָא עָלָיו שְׁטַר חוֹב גּוֹבֶה מִכֻּלָּן מִכָּל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד כְּפִי מַה שֶּׁכָּתוּב לָהֶן. כֵּיצַד. הָיָה הַחוֹב אַרְבַּע מֵאוֹת וַחֲמִשִּׁים בַּעַל הַמָּאתַיִם נוֹתֵן מֵאָה וּבַעַל הַשְּׁלֹשׁ מֵאוֹת מֵאָה וַחֲמִשִּׁים וּבַעַל הָאַרְבַּע מֵאוֹת נוֹתֵן מָאתַיִם:

When a sh'chiv me'ra says: "Give 200 zuz to so and so, 300 zuz to so and so, and 400 zuz to so and so," we do not say that the first person mentioned in the legal record of his statements receives his portion first. Instead, if the estate does not contain 900 zuz, it is divided proportionately. And if a promissory note is issued against the estate, the creditor expropriates from all recipients proportionately. What is implied? If the debt was for 450 zuz, the person granted 200 gives 100, the person granted 300 gives 150, and the person granted 400 gives 200.

אֲבָל אִם אָמַר תְּנוּ מָאתַיִם זוּז לִפְלוֹנִי וְאַחֲרָיו שְׁלֹשׁ מֵאוֹת לִפְלוֹנִי וְאַחֲרָיו אַרְבַּע מֵאוֹת לִפְלוֹנִי. כָּל הַקּוֹדֵם בַּשְּׁטָר זָכָה. לְפִיכָךְ אִם יָצָא עָלָיו שְׁטַר חוֹב גּוֹבֶה מִן הָאַחֲרוֹן. אֵין לוֹ גּוֹבֶה מִשֶּׁלְּפָנָיו. אֵין לוֹ גּוֹבֶה מִשֶּׁלִּפְנֵי פָנָיו:

If, however, the sh'chiv me'ra says: "Give 200 zuz to so and so. Afterwards, give 300 to so and so, and then 400 to so and so," whoever is mentioned first in the legal record is granted priority. Therefore, if a promissory note against the estate is brought up, the creditor should expropriate the money from the last recipient. If his holdings are not sufficient to satisfy the debt, the creditor should expropriate the money from the one mentioned before him. If his holdings are also not sufficient, the creditor should expropriate the money from the one mentioned before the second to last recipient.

שְׁכִיב מֵרַע שֶׁאָמַר יָדוּר פְּלוֹנִי בְּבַיִת זֶה. יֹאכַל פְּלוֹנִי פֵּרוֹת דֶּקֶל זֶה. לֹא אָמַר כְּלוּם שֶׁלֹּא הִקְנָה לָהֶם דָּבָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ מַמָּשׁ. שֶׁהַדִּירָה וְהָאֲכִילָה וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן הֲרֵי הֵן כְּדִבּוּר וּכְשֵׁינָה שֶׁאֵין נִקְנִין. אֲבָל אִם אָמַר תְּנוּ בַּיִת זֶה לִפְלוֹנִי כְּדֵי שֶׁיָּדוּר בּוֹ עַד זְמַן פְּלוֹנִי. אוֹ תְּנוּ דֶּקֶל זֶה לִפְלוֹנִי כְּדֵי שֶׁיֹּאכַל פֵּרוֹתָיו. דְּבָרָיו קַיָּמִין. שֶׁהֲרֵי הִקְנָה לָהֶם הַגּוּף לְפֵרוֹת וְהַגּוּף דָּבָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ מַמָּשׁ. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה:

If a sh'chiv me'ra says: "Let so and so live in this house," or "Let so and so partake of the fruits of this palm tree," his words are of no significance. The rationale is that he did not transfer an object of substance. For living and eating are like speech and sleep, which cannot be transferred. If, however, the sh'chiv me'ra said: "Give this house to so and so, so that he may live in it," or "Give so and so this tree, so that he may partake of its fruits," his statements are effective. The rationale is that he transferred the entity itself mentioned in the gift with the intent that benefit be derived. This entity is an object of substance. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.