משנה: הָאוֹמֵר זֶה בְנִי נֶאֱמָן זֶה אָחִי אֵינוֹ נֶאֱמָן וְיִּטּוֹל עִמּוֹ בְחֶלְקוֹ. מֵת יַחְזְרוּ נְכָסִים לִמְקוֹמָן. נָֽפְלוּ לוֹ נְכָסִים מִמָּקוֹם אַחֵר יִירְשׁוּ אֶחָיו עִמּוֹ. מִי שֶׁמֵּת וְנִמְצָא דִּייָתֵיקֵי קְשׁוּרָה עַל יְרֵיכוֹ הֲרֵי זוֹ אֵינָהּ כְּלוּם. זִיכָּה בָהּ לְאַחֵר בֵּין מִן הַיּוֹרְשִין בֵּין שֶׁאֵין מִן הַיּוֹרְשִׁין דְּבָרָיו קַייָמִין. MISHNAH: He who says, this is my son, is to be believed142Deut. 21:17 is interpreted to mean that the father has the right to recognize a son without submitting a proof; his statement has to be accepted by the court. There is no difference whether the son was born from a licit or an illicit union; as long as the mother was Jewish the son frees the childless wife from levirate marriage and is entitled to a full share in the inheritance (Mishnah Yebamot 2:6).. This is my brother, he is not to be believed143If he presents an otherwise unknown person as his paternal half-brother, he is required to provide proof since the half-brother would 1° reduce his other brothers’ share in their father’s estate and 2° require levirate marriage in case the deceased had no other brothers and died childless. Since he acts to the detriment of others, he cannot be believed without solid proof. but he shall split his part with him144Since a person can take an obligation on himself, by recognizing the stranger as his half-brother he acknowledged the latter as a co-heir. Since he cannot diminish the share of his other brothers, he must share his own inheritance with the stranger.; if he dies the properties shall return to their origin145His heirs are not his own children but the sons of the man who recognized him as half-brother. Their father’s unsubstantiated recognition of the stranger cannot impair his son’s rights.. If he received property from another source, his brother shall inherit with him146If the stranger accepted the status of paternal half-brother and then died without issue, the half-brother inherits.. If somebody died and a will147Cf. Bava meṣia‘ 1:7, Note 90. was found tied to his hip, this is nothing148Since a person can give away property only when he is alive, a will is valid only if either it was a public document (a death-bed will) or contains a note that an act of transfer of property was executed during the testator’s lifetime. Without such a remark, the will is invalid. If in it he transferred property to another149E. g., that it was signed by witnesses on behalf of the beneficiaries., whether of the heirs or not of the heirs, his words are confirmed150Once part of a will is valid, the entire will is valid..
הלכה: הָאוֹמֵר. זֶה בְנִי. נֶאֱמָן כול׳. אִם הָיוּ מוּחְזָקִין בּוֹ שֶׁהוּא בְנוֹ וּבִשְׁעַת מִיתָתוֹ אָמַר. אֵינוֹ בְנִי. וְשֶׁאֵינוֹ בְנוֹ אָמַר. בְּנִי. נֶאֱמָן. הָיָה עוֹמֵד בְּצַד הַמּוֹכֵס וְאָמַר. בְּנִי הוּא. וְחָזַר וְאָמַר. עַבְדִּי הוּא. נֶאֱמָן. עַבְדִּי הוּא. וְחָזַר וְאָמַר. בְּנִי הוּא. אֵינוֹ נֶאֱמָן. אִית תַּנָּיֵי תַנֵּי. נֶאֱמָן. אָמַר רִבִּי מָנָא. כְּגוֹן אִילֵּין נַפַּתָּאֵי דִמְשַׁעְבְּדִין בִּבְנֵיהוֹן יָתִיר. HALAKHAH: “He who says, this is my son, is to be believed,” etc. 151A materially different text in Tosephta 7:3, Qiddušin 4:7 Notes 182–194, Babli 127b as Amoraic statement. If it was the general belief that he was his son, but at the moment of his death he said, he is not my son, or about one not his son he said, he is my son, he is believed152Since Deut. 21:17 requires the father to recognize his son “on the day he distributes his estate”, any statement he makes on his death bed in matters of recognizing sons must be believed without requiring proof.. If he stood near the toll collector and said, he is my son153To pay only the low rate applicable to persons, not the high rate payable for slaves as merchandise. and then changed and said, he is my slave, he is believed. He is my slave, and then said, he is my son, he cannot be believed154Since he acted to his own detriment.. Some Tannaïm state, he is to be believed155Tosephta 7:3. If he always declares him a slave for toll collectors but never in other situations, he is believed but not otherwise.. Rebbi Mana said, for example those Nabateans who particularly use their sons as slaves156They may switch between slave and son without inconsistency..
הָאוֹמֵר. יִינָֽתְנוּ נְכָסַיי לִפְלוֹנִי. וְהוּא כֹהֶן וְהָיוּ שָׁם עֲבָדִים. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאָמַר. אֵי אֶיפְשִׁי בָהֶן. יֹאכְלוּ עֲבָדָיו בַּתְּרוּמָה. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר. מִכֵּיוָן שֶׁאָמַר. אֵי אֶיפְשִׁי בָהֶן. זָכוּ בָהֶן הַיּוֹרְשִׁין. אָמַר רִבִּי לָא. בִּסְתָם חֲלוּקִין. מָה נָן קַייָמִין. אִם דָּבָר בָּרִיא שֶׁרוֹצֶה בָהֶן כָּל־עַמָּא מוֹדוּ שֶׁיֹּאכְלוּ עֲבָדָיו בַּתְּרוּמָה. וְאִם דָּבָר בָּרִיא שֶׁאֵינוֹ רוֹצֶה בָּהֶן כָּל־עַמָּא מוֹדוּ שֶׁזָּכוּ בָהֶן הַיּוֹרְשִׁין. אֶלָּא כִי נָן קַייָמִין בִּסְתָם. וְרַבָּנִין סָֽבְרִין. מִשָּׁעָה רִאשׁוֹנָה הָיָה רוֹצֶה בָהֶן וְעַכְשָׁיו חָזַר בּוֹ. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר. מְכֵּיוָן שֶׁאָמַר. אֵי אֶיפְשִׁי. זָכוּ בָהֶן הַיּוֹרְשִׁין. 157A reformulation of a paragraph in Giṭṭin 1:6, explained there in Notes 166–173 (Tosephta 8:1, Babli 138a, Ḥulin 39b, Keritut 24b).“If somebody said that all his property should be given to X, a Cohen, and [the estate] contained slaves, even if [the Cohen] said ‘I cannot have them’ they eat heave. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, since he said ‘I cannot have them’, the heirs acquired them.” Rebbi La said, they disagree if he did not specify. How do we hold? If it is clear that he wants them, everybody agrees that his slaves may eat heave. If it is clear that he does not want them, everybody agrees that the heirs acquired them. But we deal with the case that he did not specify, where the rabbis think that at the start he wanted them and then he changed his mind. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, since he said ‘it is impossible for me’, the heirs acquired them.
תַּנֵּי. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר. דִּייָתֵיקֵי מְבַטֶּלֶת דִּייָתֵיקֵי אֵין מַתָּנָה מְבַטֶּלֶת מַתָּנָה. רִבִּי אַבָּא בַּר חָנָה. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ תְּרֵיהוֹן אָֽמְרִין. כָּל־שֶׁאִילּוּ יַבְרִיא וְיַחֲזוֹר בְּדִייָתֵיקֵתוֹ חוֹזֵר אַף בְּמַתָּנָתוֹ. כְּהַהִיא אַחְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי חוֹנְייָא כִּתְבַת נִיכְסָהּ לְרִבִּי חוֹנְייָא. צִרְכַת וְזִבְנַת לְבַעֲלָהּ. מִן דְּדִמְכַת אֲתַא בָעֵי מֵיעוֹר עִימֵּיהּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ. וְלָמָּה לָא תְבַעְתִּינּוֹן בְּחַיֵּיהָ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ. לָא בְעִית מֵעִיקְתָּהּ. אַף עַל פִּי כֵן אַפִּיק רִבִּי אִמִּי. It was stated158Tosephta 8:10, Babli 152b, Peah3:9 (17d l. 66) Note 175.: “Rebbi Simeon ben Gamiel says: A will invalidates a will, a gift does not invalidate a gift.” Rebbi Abba bar Ḥana: Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both are saying that in any case where he can invalidate his will if he recuperates, he also can repeal his gift159The gift of a sick person, even if accompanied by an act of acquisition, follows the rules of death-bed wills, rather than that of gifts among healthy persons.. As the following: Rebbi Onias’s sister160Who obviously lived under a regime of separation of properties. wrote her property over to Rebbi Onias. She needed money and sold it to her husband. After she died, he161R. Onias came to protest against his brother-in-law’s taking his sister’s properties as his own. came to protest against him. He asked him, why did you not claim it162If the gift was irrevocable, the sale was impossible and R. Onias should have intervened immediately. during her lifetime? He answered, I did not want to cause her pain. Nevertheless, Rebbi Immi removed it163The reader may choose his own interpretation of this sentence. R. Eliahu Fulda explains that the gift was irrevocable among healthy people, that R. Onias became the proprietor of the real estate but had to refund the sale price to his brother-in-law. Pene Moshe explains that the gift was a death-bed gift which became meaningless when the woman recovered; therefore R. Immi confirmed the husband in his possessions and took away the gift document from R. Onias. In either case would R. Immi have followed the instructions of his teacher R. Joḥanan..