Yerushalmi Ketubot 6:7 ירושלמי כתובות ו׳:ז׳

MISHNAH: If somebody gives money in trust¹⁰⁰To buy some real estate for his daughter, after the giver’s death. for his daughter and she says, I am trusting my husband¹⁰¹She wants the money to be given to her husband that he could buy the piece of real estate for her., the trustee should execute what he was entrusted with¹⁰²And not hand over the money to the husband., the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Yose says, is it not only about a field? If she wants to sell it, can she not sell it now¹⁰³Could she not legally sell today the field that in the future will be bought for her by the trustee, to be the buyer’s after the trustee will have delivered the field to her. Therefore, the trustee should follow the daughter’s instructions.? When has this been said? If she is an adult. But about a minor, no legal act of a minor is valid¹⁰⁴R. Yose agrees that the instructions of an underage daughter should not be followed..

HALAKHAH: “If somebody gives money in trust for his daughter and she says, I am trusting my husband,” etc. The Mishnah speaks of the case that he gave at the time of the preliminary marriage. But if he gave at the definitive marriage even Rebbi Meïr agrees¹⁰⁵Since the husband gets the income from the real estate after the definitive marriage, there is no reason why he should not be entrusted with buying the real estate. A similar argument is in the Babli, 69b, and an explicit text in Tosephta 6:9. If he established the trust after the definitive marriage, that is the disagreement¹⁰⁶If the father by his action shows that he does not trust his son-in-law, the trustee should not hand over the money. R. Yose holds that even in this case the daughter can sell her rights to that land any day of that year..

¹⁰⁷Tosephta 6:10; the first part also in the Babli, 69b.”If somebody says¹⁰⁸In his will to the executors of his estate after his death., give my sons one šeqel per week and they need a tetradrachma, one gives them a tetradrachma¹⁰⁹If prices rise, since 2 šeqalim, 1 tetradrachma, comprise at least one šeqel.. Do not give them more than one šeqel per week, one gives them a šeqel. But for the support of the wife and the daughters, whether he says give or do not give, one gives them a šeqel¹¹⁰All sources of the Tosephta read: “A tetradrachma.” This reading is required since the widow and her daughters are fed by the ketubah contract and a will cannot modify a contractual obligation.. It was stated: Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, Meïr used to say, if somebody says, give my sons one šeqel per week and they need a tetradrachma, one gives them a šeqel, and for the remainder they should be provided for by charity¹¹¹The executors are not empowered to deviate from the testator’s instructions even if it means that the children have to apply to public welfare.. But the Sages say, one takes continuously until the property is used up¹¹²Nobody should be forced to apply for welfare if there is a possibility to avoid it. and after that they should be provided by charity.” Rebbi Yose said, that gives a simple example for Ḥilfai’s question. He said, I shall sit on the river bank and if I cannot extract the teachings of the elder Rebbi Ḥiyya¹¹³The Tosephta. In the Babli, 69b, he is called Ilfa and it is explained that he objected to the use of baraitot and tosephtot in the study of Jewish law and was ready to jump into the sea if somebody could produce a baraita whose teachings he could not derive from the Mishnah. In the Babli, R. Yose’s observation is Ḥilfai’s own. from the Mishnah, throw me into the river. What could he say¹¹⁴Where does he find justification for the position of R. Meïr that the executors of the will cannot deviate from their instructions even in case of necessity.? “The trustee should execute what he was entrusted with.¹¹⁵Even if it seems reasonable to follow the daughter’s wishes.”

¹¹⁶This refers to a sentence in the Tosephta quoted in the preceding paragraph: “If he said, if they should die, others should inherit, then one gives them only a šeqel, whether he said to give, or not to give more.” The fact that others have to be mentioned in the will proves that these are not the legal heirs to whom the inheritance would have been given had the testator died intestate.”If they died, others should inherit.” Did not Rebbi Abbahu say in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: A person can transfer property rights in any language except with an expression of inheritance¹¹⁷Since inheritance is defined in Num. 27:6–11 and transfer of property by inheritance is restricted to the paternal family. The last sentence in this paragraph will make clear that one supposes that the beneficiaries of the will are one or more sons-in-law whose wives are excluded by biblical law from the inheritance if there is a son at the time of the father’s death, even if that only son should then die childless.
In Mishnah Baba Batra 8:5, R. Joḥanan ben Beroqa holds that a testamentary gift may be formulated in the language of inheritance if the recipient is a relative on the father’s side who might be an heir if the other prospective heirs would die before him.? One does not have here “they shall inherit” but “they shall take”¹¹⁸It is suggested that the (Hebrew) text of the Tosephta be explained (in Aramaic) to remove the objection.. Rebbi Ze‘ira asked before Rebbi Mana: Do they not differ here in matters of a gift? If somebody signed over¹¹⁹In one document. all his property to two persons at the same time; to one he wrote in the language of gift but to the other in the language of inheritance. Rebbi Eleazar said, since the one acquired in the language of gift, the other one acquired in the language of inheritance¹²⁰He holds that a document is either valid or invalid. Since the bequest by gift is valid, the entire document is valid. The same argument is in the Babli in greater detail, Baba Batra 129a.. Rebbi Joḥanan said, it seems that one did acquire in the language of gift but the other did not acquire in the language of inheritance¹²¹The document is valid but the bequest of inheritance to a non-heir is not enforceable in court. Rebbi Phineas said, there came a case before Rebbi Jeremiah: Practice follows Rebbi Eleazar since Rebbi Eleazar stated a docrine but Rebbi Joḥanan¹²²R. Eleazar gives a straight decision, implying that he learned this principle from his teachers. R. Joḥanan’s statement seems to be tentative. said only “it seems”. Rebbi Samuel said, but did not Rebbi Meïr say that and it does not seem reasonable; is that nothing¹²³R. Joḥanan gives a definitive statement: R. Meïr’s opinions in the Tosephta are rejected. Therefore, R. Jeremiah’s argument is without base.? ¹²⁴The next three sentences are from ‘Orlah 3:2, Notes 88–94. Did not Rebbi Joḥanan say in the name of Rebbi Assi¹²⁵This must be read with the text in ‘Orlah: Rebbi Assi (Yasa) in the name of R. Joḥanan; the latter is the teacher and the former the student.: Carded firstling wool becomes insignificant in a plurality¹²⁶A firstling sheep may not be shorn (Deut. 15:19). The wool is forbidden for usufruct but, in contrast to fruits from a tree less than three years old, the wool according to R. Joḥanan does not make everything forbidden if it is mixed with permitted fibers.. Rebbi Ḥiyya the Sepphorean brought before Rebbi Ammi a pound in eight¹²⁷One pound of firstling wool mixed with eight pounds of wool from other sheep, and thoroughly mixed so that one cannot recognize the fibers coming from the firstling. but the latter refused to rule since had not Rebbi Assi said, is that not a Mishnah¹²⁸It is Mishnah ‘Orlah 3:3 but Mishnah 3:2 shows that it represents R. Meïr’s minority opinion; therefore, it is not practice.? “If somebody weaves the length of a sîṭ of firstling’s wool in a cloth, the cloth must be burned, of hair of a nazir or firstling donkey in sackcloth, the sackcloth must be burned”? The following Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “If he wrote any expression of gift either at the start, or in the middle, or at the end, his instructions are valid.¹²⁹Mishnah Baba Batra 8:5. If somebody wrote a will in which either he gave some property to a non-heir or he distributes his estate in unequal portions between the heirs, if he wrote either “as a gift this property is given to X” or “this property as a gift is given to X” or “this property is given to X as a gift”, the gift is valid and can be collected by court order. This is the Babli’s interpretation in Baba Batra. The Yerushalmi in Baba Batra does not discuss the meaning of the sentence. R. Eleazar could read the Mishnah as stating that a will is valid if it gives property to three people if to one of them at least it is given as gift (position of Rav Sheshet in the Babli, loc. cit. Note 118).
The Mishnah clearly implies that any of these instructions makes the entire will valid.” There, to one person in an expression of gift and to one an expression of inheritance. But here to each one both in the language of gift and the language of inheritance¹³⁰R. Joḥanan would agree that a document, in which some property is given as a gift and other property as inheritance to one and the same person, is valid. But if the recipients are two different people, the validity for one does not imply the validity for the other. Rebbi Ḥaggai asked before Rebbi Yose: But does he not prejudice the rights of others¹³¹By naming his daughters and their husbands as heirs after his sons, does he not deprive his brothers of their biblical right of inheritance?? He said to him, if there are no brothers. But does he not prejudice the rights of his paternal uncles? Rebbi Ḥanania the son of Rebbi Hillel: A person prefers the good of his house over his relatives¹³²In order to execute the will of the deceased, the court has to enforce a will giving property to daughters and their husbands even against the testator’s brothers..