quote:

remaining 1/2 of what was "supposedly" the only legal possessions of the husband while he was alive are then divided between the man's wife and their children (male & female). This gives the widow an additional share in her husband's property, whereas a total of 2/3 of the property of the deceased falls unto the widow!

So this split involves initially dividing in two between all children as one and the wife as the other half?

Is there any distinction between minor children and adult children (perhaps with grandchildren)?


What are the rules when a wife predeceases her husband?

B"H
Rob,
To the best of my knowledge there is no distinction between minor children and adult children, but perhaps a legal-guardian would be appointed on behalf of the minors until they became of age.

If the wife pre-deceased her husband, I would think that what applied to her would apply to him as well. I'll have to check this, as I am not sure.

David

I repeat. Make yourself a will. Nothing to do with Judiasm. You are not interested in probate whereever you live. You would be amazed at the number of loving siblings that can suddenly become extremely hostile to each other.
In Jewish law, if the wife predeceases her husband, the property becomes the husbands. If the husband dies first, the wife's property is inherited by her brothers.
Jewish law has numerous discussions of what happens if a number of family members die when a wall falls down.
However, one can write whatever you wish in a will. You can even disown your children, although the Rabbis strongly dissapprove.
You do not want to do probate in Israel. (That is take the default.) We have had laws like if one of the couple die in the first year, then their parents get 1/8 of the apartment.
An alternative is a prenuptial agreement (the ketuvah) which outlines whose property is whose, expecially in the case of divorce. This was used for centuries but in recent times, people just take the default form.

Aryeh Shore

quote:

Originally posted by laurence shore:
In Jewish law, if the wife predeceases her husband, the property becomes the husbands. If the husband dies first, the wife's property is inherited by her brothers.
Aryeh Shore

Aryeh, Shalom!

Were you speaking about "Jewish law" at the time of Moses, or are you speaking about secular "Jewish law" of today?

During Moses' generation, a woman who inherited land from her father because she had no brothers, and then went off and married a man from a different tribe, at the coming Jubilee (Heb. "Yovel") those same lands she inherited would return to her father's tribe, i.e. to the brothers and kinsmen of her deceased father. But, even so, this was only a temporary order, applying only to Moses' generation. It did not apply to future generations. The Rabbis teach us that in latter generations the lands went from tribe to tribe, and the Takanah made for the daughters of Tzelophchad was never enforced.

David

B"H

One of the absurdities of the laws of the secular State of Israel is that it outlaws polygamy, unless a man and his co-wives entered the country as non-citizens, and later became citizens. (Baba-Sali came to Israel from Morocco with his three wives. They later became citizens of the State of Israel, and the State recognized his marriages with his three co-wives. Many Yemenite Jews have had similar stories.)

On the other hand, the secular laws of the State will recognize a man who is legally married, and yet carries on a romance with a second woman (concubine), giving her special rights as if she were legally married with that man! By an act of law, if a woman who maintains a relationship with another man even though they were not legally married (and even if the man is already married to another woman), since she is "known by the public" (ידועה בציבור) to be his bed-partner, she is entitled to receive a part in any inheritance left by that man!

How generous has become the secular law of the State, in this regard!! For, according to the Torah, a concubine has no special rights or privileges, and does not inherit from her partner. But here, they have made the concubine a legal heir - yet, forbid polygamy!!! Unbelievable!?

David Ben-Abraham

quote:

Originally posted by laurence shore:
I repeat. Make yourself a will. Nothing to do with Judiasm. You are not interested in probate whereever you live. You would be amazed at the number of loving siblings that can suddenly become extremely hostile to each other.
Aryeh Shore

I fully agree with you, but use a lawyer who also knows halacha. Otherwise you may have a will that will stand up in court, but according to the Torah is theft.

quote:

Originally posted by David Ben-Abraham:

quote:

Originally posted by laurence shore:
In Jewish law, if the wife predeceases her husband, the property becomes the husbands. If the husband dies first, the wife's property is inherited by her brothers.
Aryeh Shore

Aryeh, Shalom!

Were you speaking about "Jewish law" at the time of Moses, or are you speaking about secular "Jewish law" of today?

David

It is in Shulchan Aruch Even HaEzer 90

quote:

Were you speaking about "Jewish law" at the time of Moses, or are you speaking about secular "Jewish law" of today?

By Jewish law, I mean the Halacha as described in the Talmud and the Shulchan Aruch. The laws of the written Torah dealing with distribution of land by tribes were moot after the Babylonian exile (when Yovel also became moot).

Land was purchased and belonged to ever own it and was not any different than any other property.
In the marriage contract, property belonging to the woman was classified as property that must revert as was to the woman on divorce and property which could be returned as is. It could be stipulated that the woman's property could only be inherited by her male sons and that in the absence of children the property reverts to the father's estate. Although everything a women earn during the marriage belongs to the husband, she could receive property during the marriage which was only hers. The idea was that in an agricultural society, the husband would be responsible for working the land that belonged to his wife.
Obviously there are a lot more laws and developments, but we are not going to learn all of Choshen Mispat on a bulletin board.

As for lawyers, of course you want someone who knows the halacha. However, there are no limitations on how you wish to dispense your property. If you want to leave everything to one daughter and exclude your wife and the other siblings, you can. (or you can give it to provide homes for stray cats). Just because it is not the default contract, doesn't make it "theft". Alternatively, you can write that you want it dispense by the halacha but I don't know of anyone who does that since it would mean probate in a Bet Din which can take a long time if anyone does do it.
Don't worry, what ever you do, some relative will be insulted.
As for Israeli law, it just defines the laws of commerce (dina dmalchuta) which it is agreed that in matters of money, the customs of commerce take precedence over halacha. It enables people to do business and know what the law is. Unfortunately, in Israel we have no constitution and the government can (and does) change the law RETROACTIVELY. The laws of Israel are for all of its citizens regardless of ethinicity. It the absence of law (lacunae), the secular courts in Israel go by the HALACHA as opposed to British common law or the Ottoman law.


Aryeh Shore

quote:

Originally posted by laurence shore:
As for lawyers, of course you want someone who knows the halacha. However, there are no limitations on how you wish to dispense your property.
Aryeh Shore

Let me clarify. What I meant was that a legal will gives instruction how to dispense property after death. According to Halacha, once a person is dead their money no longer belongs to them and they have no say in its distribution. The moment one dies, the property instantly and automatically belongs to the halachic inheritors and the deceased's intentions are not halachically binding.
To make a will that would be valid according to Halacha, one would phrase it as a gift to take effect one minute before death takes place, and not as a will of bequeaths.

quote:

Originally posted by laurence shore:
In Jewish law, if the wife predeceases her husband, the property becomes the husbands. If the husband dies first, the wife's property is inherited by her brothers.
Aryeh Shore

* * * * * * * * * * *
Aryeh, Shalom!

Were you speaking about "Jewish law" at the time of Moses, or are you speaking about secular "Jewish law" of today?
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
David

It is in Shulchan Aruch Even HaEzer 90.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Rav Peretz, Shalom!

You cited the Shulhan Arukh (Even HaEzer) 90, where it speaks clearly about the laws governing a man who inherits his deceased wife. This is plain to me. What is not plain to me is where Aryeh wrote that when a man dies first, his wife's property is inherited by her brothers. Is there a source for this?

Respectfully yours,
David

If the husband dies first, the wife's property becomes part of her father's estate which the sons inherit. If the father is alive, he inherits.
I think the logic is that it becomes the father's responsiblity to support his daughter after termination of the marriage. Something like a coheness who marries an Israelite can't eat her father's tithe but after divorce she is again considered part of her father's house.
I guess we should clarify, that the wife and children have a lein against the husband's estate (the ketuvah) as do the children have the right to sustanance. The estate can not be inherited until the wife consents.
Although from the language of the gemara one should use the formula that the will is a gift that takes place before one dies (mostly in connection with an oral declaration in extremis), in medieval wills I have seen, they write something like my sons inherit but they must maintain my wife in her house at the same standard of living and that such and such amount is given for a trust fund for scholars or as a trust fund for charity and do not use the language of a gift before death. I doubt if the Tur or his brothers would write an invalid will.

Aryeh Shore

טז [יב] וכן אין הבעל יורש את אשתו, והוא בקבר כשאר היורשין של משפחת האב. כיצד: בעל שמת, ואחר כך מתה אשתו--אין אומרין הואיל והבעל היה קודם לכל אדם בירושתה, כך יורשי הבעל יקדמו לשאר יורשי האישה; אלא יורשי האישה ממשפחת בית אביה, הם היורשים אותה, אם מתה אחר בעלה.

Mishneh Torah Halachot Nachalot

Reading over the thread,

1. There are two accepted ways to bypass the division of property according to the halacha,
a. give a gift that will take effect before ones death
b. create a trust fund
2. Even if one does not make a proper will according to halacha, the Bet Din will uphold the will following the more liberal opinions that the custom of the community overides the halacha.
It is not recommended to make a will not in accordance with halacha. Just that if you do, the Bet Din will probably uphold it, especially if the inheritors have no objection.
Similarly, although it is not the best way, a will signed by the person himself, the Bet Din will uphold it, again, especially if the inheritors have no objection.

Aryeh Shore

quote:

Similarly, although it is not the best way, a will signed by the person himself, the Bet Din will uphold it, again, especially if the inheritors have no objection.

Aryeh Shore

That may be true, but you wrote previously "I repeat. Make yourself a will. Nothing to do with Judiasm. You are not interested in probate whereever you live. You would be amazed at the number of loving siblings that can suddenly become extremely hostile to each other" and I also know personally of similar fights. Therefore, you want a will that will stand up to any potential challenges, whether in secular court or in any Beis Din, even one that takes the letter of the law over the custom of the community.
Play it safe.

B"H

Thank-you, Aryeh, for providing the source in Rambam (Hilchos Nachalos 1:12), where the matter you mentioned is fully clarified. Indeed, a husband inherits his wife's substance if she pre-deceases him. But if he pre-deceases her, since he is no longer married unto her, what she gains in real estate and in chattels after her husband's death is no longer the property of her children by her husband, but rather, becomes the property of her father's family at her death. However, the property which was legally her husband's property would, upon her husband's death, become the inheritance of their sons.


This is all correct, indeed, under Jewish law.

Again, thank-you for showing us the source.

Sincerely,
David

B"H
I found this excellent URL on Jewish Law (Religious & Secular) which treats on the subject of Last Wills & Testaments.

http://www.jlaw.com/Articles/last_will_and_testament2.html

B"H

Israel is a land steeped in antiquity, and there are mounds of ancient cities aplenty to keep archaeologists busy for many years to come! Her soil is rife with buried treasure and artifacts from, both, the Hellenistic and Roman periods – if we only knew where to look!

Under the Israel Antiquities Law, draughted by the Israel Antiquities Authority, it defines an "antiquity" as being "any object that predates the year 1700 (of our Common Era)," and which has historical value, etc.

The Israel Antiquities Law of 1978 states that all artifacts and relics found in the State, after the year 1978, whether by persons who unearth these objects while they lay hidden on their own property, or whether they be found or unearthed by the common class on public grounds, etc., all such objects belong to the State and must, therefore, be forfeited to the State.

From a religious standpoint, when a person finds an object or money which the owner had long since despaired of ever retrieving, that same object or money becomes the legal property of its finder. How much more when those original owners had been dead for many thousands of years!

The Babylonian Talmud (Baba Metzia 28b) brings down the following anecdote:

"R. Ami found a purse containing Dinarii coins in specie which he deliberated whether or not he should take up, since he feared the Government's edict which stated that all lost & found property must, by law, be restored to the king. When a certain fellow Jew saw him in such an undecided state-of-mind, he counseled him to take up the money, and not fear, saying to R. Ami that they (i.e. the Jews) were not Persians who claim that all lost objects belong to the king."

Rather, the message here is clear: Whenever an edict issued forth from the king, or any government, stood in direct contradiction to the Law of Moses or the traditions of our fathers, whenever it is possible for us to perform the Law of Moses, we do so. That is, where that secular law becomes disruptive to our practices (in that we can no longer perform our religious duty because of those laws), we are to act with discretion in order not to invoke the wrath of the magistrates.

A chief archaeologist (whose name I will not disclose) said to me, when questioned about this subject: "If one doesn't make a habit of plundering the archaeological sites in order to sell his findings in his Antiquary's Shop, even if he should every now-and-then find old coins or relics of the past, he is permitted to hold such objects. No one will take notice."

B"H

I saw the following response on a different GY thread, and wanted it to be posted here, for the benefit of those reading our own posts. It seems to epitomize the problem that we have, as observant Jews, with the secular laws of our country (Israel). A brief introduction is necessary: In November 2006 C.E., the Israeli Supreme Court, under the leadership of Judge Dorit Beinish, ruled that gay marriages that were performed abroad (as in the case that came before them, of two gay men that were "married" in Montreal, Canada), were henceforth to be recognised by the State of Israel as a "legal marriage," making them entitled to all rights offered by the State in heterosexual marriages.

Our GY member had written these profound words: "Talking about gay rights to marry: Within the Torah paradigm they are irrelevant because marriage is recognized only through chupa and kiddushin. If the State wishes to give them a license, that's a different issue, but the [orthodox] Jewish community does not recognize State marriage licenses anyway. Gay marriage rights are a non-issue for us...

I'm of the opinion that the gay marriage issue is really about the State re-defining marriage, not about homosexuality. As such it should entertain all sorts of other alternative unions in the debate...not just the homosexual kind, e.g. polygamy, beastiality, etc." END QUOTE.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

On a different issue, the State forbids a father from "beating his child," the penal codes of which come under the category of "child abuse." We're not talking about excessive beating, or of breaking the child's bones, or pulling out his hair, or causing him to bleed, but only calculated "whipping" with a switch, or with a leathern strap, or belt, in order to correct him when he becomes un-malleable, even if such "whipping" leaves a bruise on the child's legs or arms.

The Proverbs of Solomon say: חושך שבטו שונא בנו
"He hates his son who witholds his rod [from him]."

It has always been seen as proper conduct, and within the accepted parameters of "good education," to "whip" one's child when he becomes unmanageable.

David,

Your comments:

quote:

It has always been seen as proper conduct, and within the accepted parameters of "good education," to "whip" one's child when he becomes unmanageable.

Are only partially true. The gemara in moed katan prohibits anyone from 'hitting' their older child - because it may cause the child to hit the parent and is considered "lifnei eiver".
While the rama in yoreh dei'ah might define 'older child' as in his 20's - the rishonim offered different opinions (Ritva says 13).

In our times however, Rabbi Shlomo Wolbe, zt"l, ruled that hitting a child over 3 is prohibited (as today's children are different from the times of the gemara).

There should never be a reason for spanking a child younger than 3.

Based on that I don't see anything in the law, which would be contrary to Torah in any way.

B"H

Gilad, Shalom!

Yes, I am familiar with that teaching that prohibits a man hitting his grown-up child (an adult), since he would thereby provoke him to hit back at his father. Of course, I did not mean to say that this was permissible, but rather to spank one's small child is acceptable, and has always been in most Jewish circles.

I am aware that, today, there are many "new" views on the subject of discipline, but I do not see such views as being binding upon all Jewish households or communities. Each disciplinary case should be handled in accordance with the make-up of that child who is deserving of punishment. Oh, yes, and I agree that you would not ordinarily "whip" a child who is under the age of three. Perhaps, a stern look and a scolding would work better in his case.

David

quote:

Originally posted by Gilad:

In our times however, Rabbi Shlomo Wolbe, zt"l, ruled that hitting a child over 3 is prohibited (as today's children are different from the times of the gemara).

And where is it written that Rabbi Wolbe zt''l said this?