Translation:Shulchan Aruch/Choshen Mishpat/247

Paragraph 1- If a healthy person sent vessels from overseas and said to give these to his family, they should give what is appropriate to the sons and daughters. For example, religious books and tools of war would go to the sons. That which is fit for the daughters, like dyed wool vessels and gold pieces, would go to the daughters. That which is fit for both of them, would be taken by the sons. If one had children from one wife and he married another woman and made a condition with his first children that the children from his second marriage would receive the same portion of inheritance as they did, and the second wife only had daughters, the daughters would not get anything when the sons are there.

Paragraph 2- Similarly, if one sends vessels to his house without specifying, and there were vessels appropriate for his daughters, the daughters would take them. We assess his intent that it was for them. If he had no daughters or his daughters were married, his daughters-in-law would take it because that’s where his feelings lean. There are those who say this applied where he has no wife. If he has a wife, however, he certainly sent for her because she is like her husband.

Paragraph 3- If a dying person said his properties should go to his sons, in the plural, and he only had one son and daughters, everything would go to his son. All the more so in a case where he had many sons would everything go to the sons. The daughters are not included. If he explicitly said to my sons and daughters, the sons will take what is appropriate for the sons and the daughters will take what is appropriate for the daughters. Similarly, the grandsons would not be included. An incident occurred where one instructed that everything should be given to his sons but that his daughters should reach receive a certain amount, and one of the daughters died while the father was still alive and was survived by a son, and they ruled that the grandson does not receive anything because he said to give to her, not her inheritors, and also a grandson is not called a son. There are those who say that if he had no son and just a grandson he certainly meant his grandson, even if he has daughters. If he said to give to his orphans, however, his daughters would be included. That is what seems to me from the responsa of the Rosh. The same would apply to any descendants.

Paragraph 4- If one was diving out his properties because he was dying and he wrote that his two sisters and his sister’s orphans should divide the rest, and his sister has male and female, young and old, orphans, they are all included, even the married females.

Paragraph 5- If one said his properties should go to his sons and so and so, they would divide. So and so would receive half and all his sons would get the other half. If he said he is giving to so and so and so and so, and the sons of so and so, the sons of so and so would take half and the other two would take the other half. Even if the specified individuals were many and the general ones were few, the specified would take half, even if one of the specified would receive less than one of the general, such as where he said his properties should to go so and so, and to so and so, and to so and so, and to Reuven’s children and Reuven only had two sons. The same is true with other matters. Thus, if a husband and wife made a condition that if one of them dies the properties should go to their relative, his relatives would take half, and her relatives would take half.