Translation:Shulchan Aruch/Choshen Mishpat/257

Paragraph 1- If one writes his properties to his son for after death, the actual property will belong to the son from the date of the document and the fruits would belong to the father until he died. Thus, the father would not be able to sell because the property has been given to the son and the son would not be able to sell because it is in the father’s property. If one consecrates property, effective today and after death or after 30 days, it would not be consecrated at all because it is impossible to say the property is given from today and the fruits are at a later date or he would be eating fruits that belong to hekdesh. If one writes all his properties to another, effective today and after death, he must sell them and use the proceeds to purchase real property and consume the fruits like a husband with his wife’s property, unless the donor made a condition to do whatever he wants with his properties his entire life.

Paragraph 2- If the father died and left fruits attached to the ground, they would belong to the son because a person has a close connection with his son. If the fruits were detached or it had reached the time where they were supposed to harvested, they would belong to the inheritors. If the son sold his rights to another, the recipient would not even have rights to the fruits whose time to be detached had not arrived. Rather, they would go to the father’s inheritors, and they would give the value of the what the fruits were worth at the time of death to the buyer or they would leave the fruits in the field until they were finished. The same is true if the donor wrote the property to someone else, and not his son. If he wrote to his grandson, however, it is as if he wrote to his son.

Paragraph 3- If the father went ahead and sold, the fruits would be sold until his death. Even if the father went and purchased the property back from the son, his sale would not be effective. When the father dies, the son or his inheritors can remove the property from the buyer. If there were attached fruits, we would appraise them for the buyer and the son would pay their value. If the fruits were detached or it had reached the time for them to be harvested, they would belong to the buyer. There are those who say that the law of the son with the buyer is the same as with the father.

Paragraph 4- If the son went ahead and sold, the buyer would not receive anything until the father dies.

Paragraph 5- If the son sold while the father was alive, and the son died and then the father died, when the father dies the buyer would acquire because the father only has rights to the fruits and a kinyan on fruits does not qualify as having a kinyan on the actual property.

Paragraph 6- If a healthy-gift states, “effective today and after death,” it is like a dying-gift which would not acquire until after death because the implication of this language is that although the recipient is acquiring the actual property today and the donor cannot retract, he does not obtain rights to it or eat the fruits until after death. If one writes his properties to his son and makes a condition that he can live there his whole life and be supported by his son, he can live there with his wife and the attendants he needs. Similarly, they would give him the food that he needs if he does not have from another place, as determined by the court. If the son sold the property for food, and he later receives money from another source, he does not have to pay that which he took.

Paragraph 7- If the donor wrote, “effective today if I do not retract before my death,” it is exactly like a dying-gift and the donor can retract his entire life, even from the actual property. It would still require a kinyan as a healthy-gift and we do not say in such a case that his words are considered written and handed over. Thus, if a healthy-person wants to divvy out his properties for after death so his inheritors do not quarrel when he is gone, and he wants to arrange a will while he is healthy, he must transfer with a kinyan. Even a kinyan would not be effective if he wants to give them something not in his possession because a person cannot transfer something not in his possession and only a confession, where he confesses that he owes each one whatever he wants to give him, would be effective. See above 60:6.