End-of-Life in Halakha #2: Last Will and Testament

(7) We tell the patient that he should attend to his affairs; if he owes or is owed money, but he should not take this inquiry as evidence that he is dying and become afraid.

(8) “Further, speak to the Israelite people as follows: ‘If a man dies without leaving a son, you shall transfer his property to his daughter. (9) If he has no daughter, you shall assign his property to his brothers. (10) If he has no brothers, you shall assign his property to his father’s brothers. (11) If his father had no brothers, you shall assign his property to his nearest relative in his own clan, and he shall inherit it.’ This shall be the law of procedure for the Israelites, in accordance with the LORD’s command to Moses.”

(16) when he wills his property to his sons, he may not treat as first-born the son of the loved one in disregard of the son of the unloved one who is older. (17) Instead, he must accept the first-born, the son of the unloved one, and allot to him a double portion of all he possesses; since he is the first fruit of his vigor, the birthright is his due.

(1) Although all that is involved is money, a person may not give property as an inheritance to a person who is not fit to inherit, nor may he exclude a rightful heir from inheriting. This is derived from the verse in the passage concerning inheritance, Numbers 27:11: "And it shall be for the children of Israel as a statute of judgment."

This verse implies that this statute will never change, and no stipulation can be made with regard to it. Whether a person made statements while he was healthy or on his deathbed, whether orally or in writing, they are of no consequence.

(2) Therefore, if a person states: "So-and-so is my firstborn son, he should not receive a double portion," or "My son so-and-so should not inherit my estate together with his brothers," his statements are of no consequence. Similarly, if he says: "Let so-and-so inherit my estate" when the dying man has a daughter, or "Let my daughter inherit my estate" when he has a son, his statements are of no consequence. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.

If, however, he had many heirs - e.g., many sons, brothers, or many daughters - and he says while on his deathbed: "Of all my brothers, only my brother so-and-so should inherit my estate," or "Of all my daughters, only my daughter so-and-so should inherit my estate," his words are binding. This applies whether he made these statements orally or in writing.

If, however, he states: "My son so-and-so should be my sole heir," different rules apply]. If he made this statement orally, his words are binding. If, however, he had a document composed stating that his entire estate should be given to one son, he is considered merely to have appointed him as a guardian, as explained.

(3) If a person states: "So-and-so my son should inherit half my estate and my other sons should inherit the other half," his words are binding. If, however, he states: "My firstborn should inherit as an ordinary son," or "My firstborn should not receive a double portion among his brothers," his words are of no consequence. This is derived from Deuteronomy 21:16-17: "He cannot give the firstborn rights to the son of the beloved instead of the firstborn, the son of the hated. Instead, he shall recognize the firstborn, the son of the hated."

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.

§ The mishna (146b) states that if a person on his deathbed granted all of his property to others but reserved for himself any amount of land, his gift is valid even if he recovers. If he did not reserve for himself any amount of land, his gift is not valid if he recovers. Rav Yosef bar Minyumi says that Rav Naḥman says: In the case of a person on his deathbed who wrote a deed granting all of his property to others, the manner in which he divided his property is examined. If it appears that he was intending to divide his entire estate among various recipients, then if he dies, all the recipients acquire their gifts. If he recovers, he can retract all of the gifts, in accordance with the ruling of the mishna.

If one who writes his possessions to his son after his death, the body belongs to the son from the time the contract is written, and the fruit go to the father until he dies. Therefore, the father is unable to sell, for they are given to the son; and the son is unable to sell because they are in the possession of the father.

(4) A person may not give away something that has not entered the world, whether a sale, healthy person's gift, or gift of a dying person.

The baraita continues: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said in the name of Rabbi Ya’akov, who said this in the name of Rabbi Meir: It is a mitzva to fulfill the statement of the dead. Therefore the money should be given to the heirs of the one to whom it was sent. And the Rabbis say: Due to the uncertainty, they should divide it. And here, in Babylonia, they said: Whatever the agent wishes to do he may do. Rabbi Shimon HaNasi said: When an incident of this kind occurred under my jurisdiction I inquired into how to proceed, and the Sages said to me: The money should be returned to the heirs of the sender.

It is a mitzvah to fulfill the words of the dead, even a healthy person who issued a commandment and died. And that is when he gives it now to a third party for that purpose.

(7) These laws only apply to an instance in which he invokes the language of inheritance. But if he used the language of a gift, his words remain... Rama... One who writes to his daughter she will receive half the portion of a male, its law is like general inheritance.