Birth Order
Burial in Torah
Joseph's Bones
(כד) וַיֹּ֤אמֶר יוֹסֵף֙ אֶל־אֶחָ֔יו אָנֹכִ֖י מֵ֑ת וֵֽאלֹהִ֞ים פָּקֹ֧ד יִפְקֹ֣ד אֶתְכֶ֗ם וְהֶעֱלָ֤ה אֶתְכֶם֙ מִן־הָאָ֣רֶץ הַזֹּ֔את אֶל־הָאָ֕רֶץ אֲשֶׁ֥ר נִשְׁבַּ֛ע לְאַבְרָהָ֥ם לְיִצְחָ֖ק וּֽלְיַעֲקֹֽב׃ (כה) וַיַּשְׁבַּ֣ע יוֹסֵ֔ף אֶת־בְּנֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל לֵאמֹ֑ר פָּקֹ֨ד יִפְקֹ֤ד אֱלֹהִים֙ אֶתְכֶ֔ם וְהַעֲלִתֶ֥ם אֶת־עַצְמֹתַ֖י מִזֶּֽה׃ (כו) וַיָּ֣מָת יוֹסֵ֔ף בֶּן־מֵאָ֥ה וָעֶ֖שֶׂר שָׁנִ֑ים וַיַּחַנְט֣וּ אֹת֔וֹ וַיִּ֥ישֶׂם בָּאָר֖וֹן בְּמִצְרָֽיִם׃
(24) At length, Joseph said to his brothers, “I am about to die. God will surely take notice of you and bring you up from this land to the land that He promised on oath to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob.” (25) So Joseph made the sons of Israel swear, saying, “When God has taken notice of you, you shall carry up my bones from here.” (26) Joseph died at the age of one hundred and ten years; and he was embalmed and placed in a coffin in Egypt.
Women's Inheritance Rights
Primogeniture
Seder HaYerusha
1. Husband
Bava Batra 122 b
MISHNAH. BOTH A SON AND A DAUGHTER HAVE EQUAL RIGHTS OF SUCCESSION. EXCEPT THAT A SON [WHEN FIRSTBORN] TAKES A DOUBLE PORTION IN THE ESTATE OF HIS FATHER BUT DOES NOT TAKE IT IN THE ESTATE OF HIS MOTHER. DAUGHTERS MUST BE MAINTAINED OUT OF THE ESTATE OF THEIR [DECEASED] FATHER BUT NOT OUT OF THE ESTATE OF THEIR [DECEASED] MOTHER
Bava Batra 123a
R. Helbo enquired of R. Samuel b. Nahmani: What [reason] did Jacob see for taking away the birthright from Reuben and giving it to Joseph? — What did he see? [Surely] it is written, Forasmuch as he defiled his father's couch! But, [this is the question]: What [reason] did he see for giving it to Joseph? — Let me give you a parable. This thing may be compared to a host who brought up an orphan at his house. After a time that orphan became rich and declared: 'I would let the host have [some] benefit from my wealth', He said unto him: But had not Reuben sinned, [Jacob] would not have bestowed upon Joseph any benefit at all?
Bava Batra 124a
In accordance with [whose view is the law quoted]? — It is [in accordance with that of] Rabbi. For it was taught: a firstborn son is not [entitled] to take a double portion in the appreciation of the estate, which accrued after the death of their father. Rabbi said: I say, A firstborn son does take a double portion in the [natural] appreciation of an estate which accrued after the death of their father,3 but not in the appreciation which the orphans produced after the death of their father. If they inherited a bond of indebtedness the firstborn takes a double portion [in the collected debt]. If a bond of indebtedness [for a debt incurred by the father] was produced against them, the firstborn must pay a double portion [of the debt]. If, however, he said, 'I neither give, nor take [the double portion]', he is allowed [to do so].
Bava Batra 125b
R. Papa said: The law is that a husband does not receive of the 'prospective'18 [estate] of his wife as of that which is in her possession';18 and the firstborn son does not receive of a prospective [estate of his father] as of that which is in [his father's] 'possession'. The firstborn son, [furthermore,] does not receive a double portion in a loan [owing to his father], whether [the heirs] had collected [in payment] land or whether they had collected money;
MISHNAH. [IF] ANY ONE SAID, 'MY FIRSTBORN SON, SHALL NOT RECEIVE A DOUBLE PORTION,' [OR] 'X, MY SON, SHALL NOT BE HEIR WITH HIS BROTHERS', HIS INSTRUCTIONS ARE DISREGARDED, BECAUSE HE MADE A STIPULATION [WHICH IS] CONTRARY TO WHAT IS WRITTEN IN THE TORAH. IF ONE DISTRIBUTED HIS PROPERTY VERBALLY, [AND] GAVE TO ONE [SON] MORE, AND TO [ANOTHER] ONE LESS, OR [IF] HE ASSIGNED TO THE FIRST BORN A SHARE EQUAL TO THAT OF HIS BROTHERS, HIS ARRANGEMENTS ARE VALID. IF, [HOWEVER], HE SAID, AS AN INHERITANCE', HIS INSTRUCTIONS ARE DISREGARDED. [IF] HE WROTE, EITHER AT THE BEGINNING OR THE MIDDLE OR THE END, 'AS A GIFT', HIS INSTRUCTIONS ARE VALID. (Because a person is entitled to dispose of his property, as a gift, in any manner that appeals to him.)
R. Ammi said: A tumtum [firstborn] (one whose sexual organs are undeveloped or concealed) who, having been operated upon was found to be a male, does not receive a double portion [as heir], for Scripture says. And if the firstborn son be hers that was hated, [which implies that he cannot be regarded as firstborn] unless he was a son at the beginning of [his] being. R. Nahman b. Isaac said: Neither is he tried as a 'stubborn and rebellious son'; for Scripture says, If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, [which implies that] he must have been a son at the beginning of[his] being.
The Work Arounds:
Gifting
A person has the right to distribute his property as he determines during his lifetime.To effect a Matnas Bori – a gift of a well person, one would need a kinyan – an act of acquisition. The problem with this is that this does not work for inheritance, since one cannot perform a kinyan that would come into effect only after one’s demise – Ein kinyan le’achar missoh. Furthermore, ein odom makneh dovor shelo bo le’olom – one cannot perform a kinyan on something that does not yet exist. If one were to apportion one’s estate via a regular kinyan, one would only be able to deal with possessions that one owns at the time. Anything subsequently coming into one’s possession would not be included.
matnas she'chiv me'ra - the bequest spoken by a person on his death bed.
Shtar Chatzi Zochor. A man writes a document that obliges him to pay a very large sum of money, usually more than the value of the entire estate, to his daughter, with a condition attached that in the event that his heirs pay the daughter a share of the estate, she releases them from the obligation to pay the debt. The custom was to award the daughter a portion of the estate equivalent to half of that of each of the sons. When the man dies, his sons will have a choice. Either they give their sister/s a half share in the estate and thus be released from the debt that has been charged on the estate, or else they will have to pay off the debt resulting in them being left with nothing. The document explicitly stated that the debt was only payable one hour before the man dies – this was in order to ensure that the daughter would not claim the debt from her father in his lifetime. Furthermore, it was customary to add a clause that excluded the daughter from any share in the deceased’s seforim or in any real estate. an indebtedness - to be paid one hour before death.
Honoring the Will -
mitzvoh lekayem divrei hamess – which means to say there is a mitzvah upon us to carry out the instructions of a person who has passed away, with regard to the distribution of his estate. This mitzvah is even more incumbent on the children of the deceased. Also supported by the concept of
dina d'malchusa dina (the law of the land has halachic validity) Gittin 10b; or situmta, honoring the custom of the merchants.
The motivations:
Kibud Av ve'Em (honor father and mother)
Avoid strife - Godol Hasholom – wherever possible one should avoid strife and machlokes
Avoid taxes
Charitable intentions
מתני׳ שכיב מרע שכתב כל נכסיו לאחרים ושייר קרקע כל שהוא מתנתו קיימת לא שייר קרקע כל שהוא אין מתנתו קיימת:
§ MISHNA: With regard to a person on his death-bed who wrote a deed granting all of his property to others, and he reserved for himself any amount of land, his gift stands even if he subsequently recovers. If he did not reserve for himself any amount of land, and he recovered, his gift does not stand, as the gift was conditional upon his death, since is it evident that he did not intend to leave himself without means of support. GEMARA: Who is the tanna who taught that we follow the principle of assessing a person’s intentions, even when he did not expressly state them? Rav Naḥman said: This is the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya, as it is taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Ketubot 5:9): In a case where one’s son went overseas and he heard that his son died, and then he arose and wrote a document granting all of his property to another, and then his son came back, his gift to the other people is a valid gift. Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya says: His gift is not a valid gift, as had he known that his son was alive he would not have written a document granting them his property. . .
Bava Batra 147 a
Rav Sheshet said: The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna who taught that which the Sages taught (Tosefta, Ketubot 4:15): If one was ill and bedridden, and those present said to him: To whom shall your property be given? And he said to them:I thought I had a son; now, [however] that I have no son, [let] my estate [be given] to X"; [or] if a person was lying ill in bed, and on being asked to whom his estate [shall be given]. he replied, "I thought my wife was with child; now' [however] 'that my wife is not with child, [let] my estate [be given] to X"; and it [subsequently] transpired that he had a son or that his wife was pregnant, his gift is invalid,' Is it to be assumed that this [statement represents the view of] R Simeon b. Menasya and not [that of] the Rabbis? — It may even be said [to represent the view of] the Rabbis, [but] 'I thought' is different. And what did he that raised the question imagine? — It might be suggested that he was merely mentioning his grief, hence [it was necessary] to teach us [that this is not so].
Charitable Giving
Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De'ah
שולחן ערוך, יורה דעה רמט:א
Original Text:
שיעור נתינתה, אם ידו משגת יתן כפי צורך העניים. ואם אין ידו משגת כל כך, יתן עד חומש נכסיו, מצוה מן המובחר; ואחד מעשרה, מדה בינונית; פחות מכאן, עין רעה.
Translation:
The amount of giving: If the giver can afford it, he gives according to the poor person's need, and if the giver cannot afford it, he should give up to a fifth of his wealth. This is the greatest way to fulfill this commandment. The average way to fulfill this commandment is to give a tenth of one’s wealth. Less than this is considered an evil eye.
[AJWS translation]
Mar Ukba - Ketubot 67b
When he was about to die he requested, 'Bring me my charity accounts'. Finding that seven thousand of Sijan [gold] denarii were entered therein he exclaimed, 'The provisions are scanty and the road is long', and he forthwith distributed half of his wealth. But how could he do such a thing? Has not R. Elai stated: It was ordained at Usha that if a man wishes to spend liberally he should not spend more than a filth? — This applies only during a man's lifetime, since he might thereby be impoverished but after death this does not matter.
Bava Batra 148 a
R. Abba said to R. Ashi: We learnt it in connection with [the following statement] of R. Simeon b. Lakish. For R. Simeon b. Lakish stated: When someone, in selling a house to another, told him, 'On condition that the upper story [remains] mine', the upper story [remains] his.