Translation:Shulchan Aruch/Choshen Mishpat/284

Paragraph 1- All inheritors can inherit via presumption where witnesses testify that he is presumed to them as so and so, even though they do not know the accuracy of his lineage. The same applies to other inheritors. If one is presumed to be related to the deceased and we do not know of any closer relative, he would inherit him and we are not concerned that there may be a closer relative so long as we don’t know about it. See above 280:7. We would not allow a relative to go down to the inheritance on the basis of a solo witness.

Paragraph 2- Inheritors cannot inherit until they bring proof that their relative died. If they heard he died or gentiles came and in passing said they died, however, although we would marry off his wife and she would collect her kesubah on that basis, and similarly in a case where the women comes and says her husband died, although he she is believed and can remarry and collect her kesubah, the inheritors cannot take the inheritance on that basis.

Paragraph 3- If a woman said her husband died and her brother-in-law performed yibum on her, he may enter his brother’s inheritance on the basis of her testimony, as the verse states, “he shall uphold his brother’s name,” and he has upheld it.

Paragraph 4- If one drowned in waters that have no end, and witnesses testify that he drowned in front of them and that his memory was forgotten, although we would not allow his wife, in the first instance, to remarry, the inheritors may inherit on the basis of their testimony. Similarly, if witnesses testify that he fell into a lion’s or tiger’s den, or that they saw him hanging and the birds eating from him, or that he was stabbed in war and died, or that he was killed but they did not recognize his face, but they had bona-fide identifying marks on his body which they recognized, in any such case or any similar case if his memory was later forgotten, the inheritors may go down on the basis of this testimony, even though his wife may not remarry, because the only reason they were stringent was because of the potential violation of a kares prohibition. With respect to a monetary issue, however, if the witnesses testified on something that would be assumed to mean death, and the witnesses saw it and his memory has been forgotten and we now hear he died, they would be able to inherit on the basis of their testimony.