Yeshiva
Beit Midrash
- Sections
- Chemdat Yamim
- P'ninat Mishpat
It is difficult to dismiss the will based on the assumption that it is forbidden to uproot things from a shul, since it is not clear that this applies to removing movable objects and because not everyone is aware of the halacha that it is forbidden to do so. Regarding the assumption that his foremost interest was the future of his own shul, if it could be preserved, that is not necessarily correct. It is possible that Reuven thought that it is a bigger mitzva or a better memorial for him (considering he died without children) to leave his shul furniture in the main shul.
However, the existence of the witness is significant. It is not a simple question whether the big shul, which is the recipient of the will, or the halachic inheritors are considered muchzakim (in possession until proven otherwise). If the inheritors are muchzakim, then with the one witness, they prevail without the need for an oath. Since a witness creates the obligation of an oath on a defendant, it is certainly able to come in lieu of an oath to exempt the defendant, who is muchzak, from an oath. If the big shul is muchzak, then the witness only obligates them to swear, and in this case, they are exempt from swearing because they are not expected to know what Reuven’s intention was. However, it seems clear that the will does not turn the big shul into a muchzak. Since property is always assumed to go to its inheritor until proven otherwise, it would seem that the inheritors are muchzakim.
It is also possible that Reuven was not even considered the owner of the shul furniture, but that it belonged to tzedaka, and Reuven’s rights to control the property are not the type of thing that can be transferred to an inheritor or given to the big shul after his death. If that is the case, which is probable, then the furniture would stay where it is in the small shul.
Another claim to nullify the will’s validity is that it was done only through the non-Jewish courts and without a proper kinyan. If, as you said, Reuven was a shchiv meira (on his deathbed) and the document includes mention of death, then it works according to the special rules of matnat shchiv meira and is effective even if done only in the non-Jewish courts.
P'ninat Mishpat (835)
Various Rabbis
282 - The Right to Rent in 16th Century Turkey
283 - A Donation That “Destroys” a Shul
284 - Mechila that May Be Lacking
Load More
P'ninat Mishpat P'ninat Mishpat: Problematic Lights?
based on appeal of ruling 84085 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
Rabbis in Midrash
Lessons
fast navigation
Various Events FOR WHOM NOT TO VOTE
Rav Zvi Yehuda Kook stressed that Israeli politics is G-dly, so I have no problem answering this common question on a Torani blog. Also, Free-Will is a G-d-given right and obligation, to "destine one's fate" (R. Soloveichik, Kol Dodi Dofek, 67), so I obviously don't tell others how to vote. But once not a few (especially young) have already asked, a couple of personal words from experience and thoughts from chazal & Rav Kook which may be of help to others, mainly for whom NOT to vote.
P'ninat Mishpat Fallout from Failure to Install Elevator – part II
based on ruling 85007 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
