Failing to Plan is Planning to Fail (Part 4): Wills and Estates in Jewish Law

okay good afternoon and welcome back to the men's afternoon cola apologize that we are just a few minutes behind but uh thank you for being with us and looking forward to learning together as rabbi shoptime mentioned as always we're grateful to the furlough financial group for their sponsorship we are running a huge campaign this week friends of brs members of the brs global community we need your help if you enjoy if you benefit from if you read listen watch if you are inspired if you learn if you grow from brs it's classes it's speeches it's articles it's panels it's conversations we ask your help for your partnership if you're a brs member you're doing our part but you can be a member of the greater brs global community if you're not yet a member of brs please go to brsonline.org global brsonline.org global it will be added to the chat you'll be able to click it afterwards very easily in order to be able to in order to be able to join easily and i hope that you will because we need everybody's help we need everybody's participation and we're asking modest whatever you can give whatever you can do to be part of our initiative our endeavor our effort our our uh inspiration our campaign we'd greatly greatly appreciate it okay those who are watching we're across several platforms here um some will be able to see and others will simply listen but i'm happy to share the source sheets with anyone who would like them after after the fact okay on zoom you see the source sheets somebody uh who's watching okay thank you rabbi brand as always okay so we are going through the considerations jewish legal considerations in wills and estates we've spoken about the importance of having a living will which is not our topic for today we've spoken about the importance of having a halachic will to ensure that no one is stealing that if somebody takes them who are otherwise the rightful heirs that you are not stealing from them and what's involved in having a halachic will before that we talked about aids ethical will and ensuring that a person is leaving instructions not only what to do with their money and their assets and their property and their real estate and their holdings but their values how to ensure that children grandchildren and generations to come will not only inherit material physical possessions but will also inherit a vision and a set of values and how important it is and how many of our great uh earlier mothers and fathers left eight zava left what we call an ethical will we talked about the propriety of leaving a significant portion of your estate too to tstaka how much should be left to stuck how much should be left to your children a parent's responsibility to position their children to succeed the best platform for them to live that life pursuing those values is to not have to live in fear or crisis when it comes to money and therefore it's the best of one's ability to position their children and grandchildren so they can focus on torah and mitsubishi all the while still being ambitious and aspirational to grow in the ways that they want to and should be able to should be able to grow one of the success you should consider is the brs global campaign so if you haven't hit the button yet if you're watching on our page brsonline.org global you can hit donate and leave a nice message in honor of rabbi shabtai for putting the afternoon cola together or any of the teachers if you're listening on another platform go to brsonline.org global and even though it will be a little bit less for your children you'll leave them a great legacy of giving and supporting the places that provide and inspire you with torah and then we came to the question of whether one is obligated to follow the way it appears in the torah prescription of the torah of the way it organizes what we have to leave our children in the story of binocular and we saw that follows it a son and then the sons children and grandchildren if you don't have through a son and then it goes uh the different directions upside down daughter and so on how does one circumvent how does one short circuit that system of what demands and leave a will that's more equitable a will that will leave greater harmony within a family is our question we spoke about the bachor the because the first son is no tel pishnin the firstborn son takes a double portion but they don't get a double portion and everything they only get a double portion said the mishna in that which the father was muksak actual real liquid holdings that which was potential like debt that's not yet been recovered does not and we saw machloke's debate how does one view money in the bank in a bank account is the bank account considered the real money of the parent or is the bank account considered the potential money essentially money that's been lent to the bank that makes paying interest on that will recover when you want to be able to take it from the bank we saw similarly is a government bomb when you hold the bomb when you own the bond is the document the star of the bond is that as significant as legal tender as as money as bills or do you say it's potential until you until the bond matures and until you have the actual assets of the bond that's considered potential not real that too was a was a mach locus so the application of a getting a double portion the eldest son getting the double portion is not so simple or straightforward but again there are details to be the first born it meant not born through c-section that is not a first-born born because that baby has been removed from the mother but not born at least according to the definition of being born we saw it as to be the firstborn of the of the father even if it's not the firstborn of the of the mother and that brought us up to where we are now the rashford which we began where we ended with last week and we said we're going to begin with this week source 28 if you're looking at the source sheet it's on page 10. so the chubus of the rashba the rashbord of some of the great rishonim one of the great medieval authorities of commentators on the talmud and then authorities of of torah law of halakhala and he says the the following he deals with the question as we spoke about or set it up on last time the rajvo is dealing with the following question it's over here the rashford was dealing with the following question roofing has a daughter leo is married to shimon and they give birth to and they give birth to a daughter and shortly afterwards both leia and the daughter expire they leave this world reuven then claims based on the law of the land based on the dina de marchusa based on the law of the land reuven says the money comes back to me it had been my daughter's dowry my daughter and my granddaughter both died so that son-in-law who has no continuing connection to me doesn't get the money it comes back to me and the son-in-law says what are you talking about the halacha is that a husband inherits his wife and since a husband inherits his wife the money really comes to me we went through these as well a husband versus a wife a wife from a husband a wife is supported from the estate until she collects herksuba but she doesn't inherit the principal a daughter receives a dowry from the estate but she doesn't receive any principle unless one employs one of the mechanisms that we'll still get to later on in order to circumvent it so the rashma was asked who's right do you follow the law of the land and does the father-in-law get his money back that he had really only given ever as part of a dowry or do you follow the law of the land or do you follow the halacha is the son-in-law right when he says what are you talking about the says that a husband inherits his wife the money really belongs to me and the rashford we ended last week by telling you in very strong terms the rash was unequivocally clear and the rashford is very strong it says when does dina di sadina when is it that we follow the law of the land when it comes to taxes and when it comes to sewage and garbage collection when it comes to interpersonal relationships our relationships with society and civilization when it comes to our responsibility to the secular world around us they were bound by the secular law it is a jewish law to observe the secular law so those are the taxes imposed upon us and they're not in violation or conflict of a jewish law we're bound by the tax law if the speed limit is the speed limit universally placed upon us for the good of society a social contract we are bound by the speed limit that is dina de mahusa dina but says the rashba when the dean of the mahusadina when the law of the land is in conflict with the law of torah on an area that is not the business of secular society that has no that's not their interest how we how we uh execute the laws of yerusha the laws of inheritance and bequests that's not the business of the king of the government the jewish law has its own system jewish law has its own formula jewish law has what to say then jewish law will supersede with the secular law you would not apply dina de mahu sadina in such a circumstance this opinion of the rajba who says that in fact to follow the law of the land over the is corrupt and will lead to zela just to look at his words again uh it's source 28 as i said on page 10 if you have the sushi he says our rabbis are our fathers and we're obligated to listen we are a nation we have our own distinct and unique laws they come from god he gave us the blueprint and he gave us the manual he gave us the instructions of what is moral and what is ethical so one of those moral and ethical laws is to follow dina de marchusa but that's when it comes to society when it comes to laws of inheritance which are between jew and jew parent and child that we have our own system if you're going to uproot the inheritance of a father on children you're going to knock down the walls of torah okay you're going to uproot and you're going to remove the branches anyone who says that you return the money to the father because it's his dowry and that's what the civil law dictates toa is making a terrible mistake the ghazlanu ughzala yashiv and therefore if the father takes the money back because he's following the civil law and he takes it out of the hands of the former son-in-law because he's having the civil law supersede the halacha he has stolen and he has a obligation responsibility to return that which is stolen the rama of moshe israelis follows this yosey follows this and the rama follows this and they conclude does not override hilhos yerusha in the area of inheritance and requests the law of the land does not he does not override the and therefore a conflict between the two we follow this seems to be the opinion of as i said the base yosef and the rama and many many other postgame now it's clear so the following question comes up what happens if one did not take the proactive steps to make a halacha quill living so somebody meets with their estate lawyer who's not jewish or a non-observant jew and not a non-uh torah scholar and they had no idea that there are rules that govern how we leave money to children and grandchildren or to whomever and they don't understand that torah has a prescription and a formula that we have to work within and operate within so they write a simple secular civil law and the person dies only having left a secular civil law so what is the halacha for the benefactor for the inheritor of that law of that of that will are they stealing from the other from whom would have said they have to so let's say a man divides his state he's got a son and a daughter he gives for simplicity 50 to his son 50 percent to his daughter and he never had a halachic will he did not come to the afternoon colo he didn't have the benefit and the beauty of the doctor you talked belzon-based madrish and the uh cola the afternoon call of brs for which you should all go to brs.online.org global and make sure to do your part and to give whatever amount we're deeply appreciative for your partnership for your help and frankly for your expressing gratitude for the ability to sit at home and you got because four afternoons a week and listen to torah not from me but from other great speakers and russian yeshiva who join please show your hakarasa sato by doing your part and by and by giving so this man wasn't part of the kolo and he didn't hear the the series on wills and estates he didn't know he left simply a secular civil will and he left the 50 of his estate should go to his son 50 to his daughter says a hundred percent goes to the son the daughter's only entitled to collect her dowry if she is single or certain other rights are privileges in the estate but she's not entitled to any of the principle of the estate itself so if the son if the daughter rather says well dad abba tati left a will and he said i get 50 and the son says nice try sis that's what it says in the civil will but halacha says i get a hundred percent i'm going to take you to a bayesian and now the basin has tapaskin do we take the 50 out of the hands of the daughter or do we let her keep the as stipulated indicated in the will the second a civil will of the father essentially this is the question of the rashba will the civil law supersede halakha or where the father didn't observe in leaving his will does the does dictate we follow the hierarchy or can you follow the secular civil will in such a situation or moreover let's give an even more specific example someone didn't leave a will at all if someone didn't leave a will at all what is the halacha a person dies into state which means a fancy word of saying they died without a will so what will happen civil authorities step in and there are trustees or whatever state people who step in and they examine and they figure out the value of the estate and they follow whatever the civil law is in dictating and determining how to distribute the estate in accordance with the laws of of uh of estate planning or whatever the state laws are so um so the civil authorities will distribute and they're going to distribute in ways that differ from the halacha in ways that differ from the so is the person who receives that gift so let's say i don't know what the estate laws are i see we have some lawyers who are listening so you do so don't correct me if i'm wrong because i'm only saying this to illustrate but let's say the inter interstate laws intestine i forgot the fancy word is the interstate laws say that if a person did not have a civil law a secular will so we're going to give it to the closest relative and we determined that was a cousin twice removed and we called the cousin and we say good news for you just won the lottery you got all this money and he happens to be from yet he happens to be a torah observant jew and he wants to know he goes to his rabbi and he says but what do i do because i looked at the says rather than me the one who should receive this is a different cousin is the uncle is the whomever says someone else gets it not me so he goes to israel he goes to the position and he says what's the the civil law the interstate law that said that when no will is filled out said that i get it but al-aqsa says someone else gets it am i entitled to keep it so according to the rash but you would have thought it was a very short answer according to the rashford what's the answer absolutely not you must not and cannot keep it if you keep it you're violating you're stealing you must not you cannot keep it you're absolutely stealing god forbid how could you do that according to the rashba halakha will supersede civil law in this in this circumstance and in this case however we come to ramosha's the halo guru of moshe feinstein's it takes her of moshe to write this and says her moshe the following we're in source number 30 on page number 11. source 30 already well it is part 4 of this of this class so and the question is the following let's look at the question together and then we'll see a summary of this chuva bedova let me make it a little bigger i'll pretend it's for you but really it's for me because i'm getting older you did the arab hagon but sallallahu alaikum shalita gonadesdan patterson so i guess paterson had an av based in at the time and the av based on of paterson i assume this is paterson new jersey which is where yavin academy my elementary school was before it moved to paramus paterson new jersey had an albays then at some time named and he submitted her emotional following question the um will of a woman whose money was in a bank lite ma'am gamla staka to give and and the woman indicated in her will that a portion of her estate which is in the bank should be left to money to staka it's taco like for example the brs online dot org global campaign so he says look the money's really should have come to me so she's leaving at some times taka that should fulfill the promise the oath the nether i talked against not to talk about maybe this man who probably did go to the beers afternoon koala have such an einfowl such a great talmudic logic he said really the will of my wife is a garnished she has a will it's not a halachic will it's a secular civil will so in her will when she says banks should give some of the money to the stucco and i parenthetically i by the way also made a nether i took an oath a promise i was going to leave money the same stucco so really her secular civil will should have been an absolute nothing halachically is the husband should have inherited 100 of what she has the fact that the secular civil law is going to take what she indicated should go to the charity out of which should have come to me allah and give it to the charity that should fulfill my oath of what i promised the charity what a great iron fight what a great cop of this husband really 100 unlucky should have come to me secular civil law is going to take out of what's coming to me what she said secularly and civilly should go to the charity i happen to have made an oath a promise a pledge to give to the charity the money that should have come to me but that's gonna go to the charity because of her really is coming from me because i should have inherited her and therefore it should fulfill my nether it should fulfill my oath my promise my pledge this was the question posed to moshe is this person's lumdas is his kiddish accurate is it correct or let us paraphrase essentially the question to ramosa is that here's a will drafted according to secular law but not halacha is it halachically binding is a will drafted according to secular law but binding now i will reiterate over and over again it is certainly not what should be done even though we're going to see ramosa's very novel and very very minority very not normative opinion in a moment but even with ramosa's opinion one must have will if you've been listening to the series and you've not called your estate lawyer to revisit if you do not have the halal parameter all you have to do is insert one paragraph to your will to make it we're not even up to that yet but we will get there so please god everyone should live long and healthy it's a schoola if you take care of your will it's ava it's a school of arakas yamam it's not really but that's what we say to make you do your tava it's a school of our rich it means please god everyone should live a long long and prosperous and healthy and happy life together with the brs global community which they are a partner and have contributed to at brsonline.org global how come you're all running there probably because you don't want to interrupt the learning you're going to go after the colo but make sure you visit it after the cola and give if you're not yet a brs member please do your part and show your gratitude so ramosha was so you have to have a halache quill even ramosh's opinion of moshe's opinion has been heaven the emotions opinion is after the fact someone only drafted a civil secular will not a halachic well what would allah say do you disregard it and follow the or is the silver secular will binding in some manner that was the question to moshe but ramosa of course agrees you have to have a halachic will you have to draft it according to allah guidelines the question is will this be binding this was the question posed to leilaga feinstein and ramosa has the following enormous kiddish we're not going to learn the whole chuva the whole shuba is here on this one page simon kavdal in evanescence again i'm happy to email the source sheet to anyone who would like it please be in touch with me and especially happy to send it to those who are members of the beers global community or members of brs we'll just look at ramosha's conclusion and ramosh has a very very novel conclusion and he says that a will drafted in compliance with civil law is halachically valid and an heir to such a will is not a thief they've not stolen from whomever would have determined should have been the beneficiary of the will says ramosha if all there is a secular will it is binding and whomever the secular will gives a portion or the estate too is not a ghana for a gasoline has not stolen from whoever should have been the beneficiary halal and they need not or must not uh they're not obligated to return it how does he come to this conclusion how does he come to this conclusion he says the following let's look at his last paragraph this is a great reason why in this land america in our land people follow a secular law it's a prophetic will but if you don't have it will people still observe and keep their secular will then um they didn't understand why they weren't relying on ramosa's kirish but nevertheless if they're not navy and banana vm they got lucky they did something which is going to end up being halally binding even if they don't appreciate or understand the mechanism diane grunfeld diane grunfeld was a great dying on the london based in diane grunfeld wrote up the jewish laws of inheritance a wonderful book and i should mention that we have been collecting this series of which we have a long way to go still from wonderful articles actor and the great article that was sent to me that was in the journal khakira called the propriety of a civil will yehuda warburg a yehuda warburg who is a faculty of law dr jurisprudence dying serving the hasidic man orthodox in shiva communities of new jersey and new york he has a long article the propriety of a civil will in the journal they're all well worth reading and we're referencing or many of our references or sources come from these many articles and the prescription safer and many others so this is one of them the jewish law of inheritance from diane grunfeld he quotes here but moshe feinstein of new york goes much further than reach of england and regime izzy garzinski we'll come to their succumb in a moment and maintains that a testament made by a jewish person according to the law of the land whilst he was in good health is valid in jewish religious law although there was no kinion because a donation made in such a testament does not need a kenyan this was from moshe's how does it work exactly the question is what is ramosa doing that's working what is ramosh saying there's no kenyan misa you can't transfer money after you die so how is it that a secular will should work really at the moment the person dies at the exact moment that a person dies whomever halacha determines should receive the money should receive the money should be the one who then owns the money that should be the halacha so if that's the case that the beneficiary should get the money immediately and there's no way to transact there's no way to transfer ownership la remissa after death how was the secular will binding that was really the question that emotion is going to have to deal with that's what emotion is going to have to deal with ramos says that one can follow the secular will and you're not considered stealing you're not violating allah and the secular will will be binding even though it is connected even though it is in inconsistent with halacha how the question is what's the mechanism for moshe how will the money transfer so again beryl dies and he has a hundred thousand dollars and he has a secular will saying that 50 000 goes to his daughter or he had no secular will and now secular law is going to step in and say examine the estate and make a determination of to whom the money should go so ramosha says good you could follow the determination you could follow a secular will you should have had al-aquil he was wrong not to have al-aquil but you could follow a secular will but the question is how what's the mechanism doesn't allah make it that the son should have gotten 100 at the moment of the father's death so where does the girl come later to come to the estate and say give me 50 just because the secular will says it or in the case that there's no will halacha says immediately it should kick in who should benefit from the money so the fact that the estate comes along later and makes the determination what is the mechanism of transfer after someone die in order to be able to transact in order to be able to transfer ownership in order for someone to acquire from someone else the someone else has to be among the living you have to be alive so if if the owner is deceased how can he transfer ownership to someone else that is the question that is the predicament or the dilemma that's facing ramosa in his position of why it should work that a civil secular law should be halal binding so this is moshe's heritage his heritage is you don't need a kenyan in such a situation jewish and non-jewish law differs as to whether the effect of the particular clause in the testament i give him a quest only sets in after death in spite of the fact that in jewish law a donation cannot be affected after the death of the donor ramosa writes the following vein even though the bequest is a gift posthumously and there is no acquisition or transaction after death shaqvar aina shallah in this case promotion is true but he's dealing with a woman so the money is no longer hers to give it to a stakka to give it to the husband to give it to whomever it's no longer hers so therefore how could the matana how could the gifted stakka be binding after her death she's no longer here to give it and nothing can be transferred without someone to give to transfer habadin the moshe's magic words are in kenyan there is no greater transfer or transaction than that um here's the translation of rav moshe although we're dealing here with a gift to be made after the death of a donor and there's no such thing as a kingdom after death as the object no longer belongs to the donor and such a gift is therefore not valid in jerusalem nevertheless according to the law of the land that a person can legally transfer with effect after death money or any other object which at that time obviously no longer belongs to him or her but in essence it is clear according to my humble opinion to zero moshe that a testament of this kind the dispositions of which will certainly be put into effect by the authorities of the country does not need a kenyan as one could not imagine a more effective kingdom than this in other words can't imagine a kenyan but if the law of the land will take it out of the bank account and put it in someone else's that replaces the kinion we couldn't imagine there is no kenyan gadomizes as ramosha meaning we don't have a means of transferring the ownership from someone who's deceased but if the law of the land transfers that ownership kenyan gadomizer hence since the kenyan is not necessary the leagues can uphold their right also against the persons who are the proper heirs by total law although there's no such thing in jewish law as a gift after the death of a donor so in other words halacha doesn't recognize kenyan because allah has no means to do it but where has no mechanism or means to transfer the ownership after death that's where the civil or secular law steps in and says that they do have the ability they do have the ability and therefore even someone can point to the civil law and say that's the mechanism you allah have no mechanism but recognize secular law and secular law is in itself the mechanism of the transfer and therefore according to moshe that is exactly how it's going to be it's exactly how it's going to be binding it's a huge hadisha from moshe it's a huge kiddish ramosh is basing his view on the suggest of tonight's then in the binyan dekhnen bin indikaran in the end of his uh in baba bassandhaf and at the end of his disquisition which is a fancy word for saying his chuva his essay he remarks as we had read this is a valid reason why in the usa people rely on such testaments and do not hesitate to accept league legacies based on them and although not all who make such testaments under the deeper halachic reason in other words when you rely on the secular civil will and you don't employ a halachic will you're not doing it because you know the dinim of en kenya la chamisa abba in kenyan gadomizu you're not knowing the whole lundis ramos is conceding that the average person who has a secular will and doesn't have halachic doesn't know the alumnus of the mechanism but they have the right intention because if they're not prophets the descendants of prophets that is ramosa's enormous enormous there's no recognition of the jewish law of a kenyan because assets no longer belong to the person but according to the law of the land they can transfer even after death and since according to the law of the land they can transfer after death ramosa says there is no greater kenyan than this it's a such a huge it was not accepted wisely widely diane arya leib grasnas who was a prominent dying on the london based in wrote a strong and thorough and comprehensive critique over moshe's chuva and his chivas lave arya diane grossman chuvos he wrote a uh very strong critique of ramosa's truva and it's not just diane grossman he writes here as well uh diane grenfell's writes whether rabbi finds this allah gathering towards testaments made in accordance with the law of the land without a kingdom by testitures in a good state of health will be accepted by his allahi peers is doubtful although refined himself belongs to the leading of our time in other words you can't dismiss her moshe you can't dismiss her moshe and by the way in obeys then it might uphold if somebody comes in who is the beneficiary of assets through a secular law and a relative comes in and says well according to i get so they might be able to tell the base then to represent to the based in i follow ramosa i have the right to follow rob motion ramosha would say the secular civil law is binding how would the based in pascan in such a situation they may not hold the remotion therefore their sac may not reflect rabosa so that ingrosnas rejected it and diane grunfeld here in his book the laws of inheritance references that it was not widely accepted but to tell you how not widely accepted it was a goldberg satsang an article rejected it the five o'clock did not accept it and several of the earlier commentaries also disagree with of course the lumdas of ramosa sovereign and the uh and others what was dying grossness's major argument against it his major argument against it was to to disregard uh the um the argument of ramosa was the following this is gemaran tamura in islay vary in his chuva he says the following where is it in lay variety based it's not here in the source sheets diane grossman is truva but i'll tell you is one of his arguments the gemara says in tomorrow the gemara says that if there's a conflict between what an individual wants to have happen and what hashem or what the determines should happen which do we think supersedes the other what should be what would you think obviously hashem's directive so what happens a person has an animal and the animal gives birth to a firstborn the firstborn is born and now the person says i dedicate that animal as a carbon ola i am sanctifying that animal to be a special carbon or carbon ola now what is the real status of that first born animal the real status of the firstborn animal is a bachor a bachor has certain rules to it and so which is it is the animal determined to be a bachor or is the animal determined to be an ola the owner of the animal says i want it to be a carbonola but the almighty has already determined that he wants the animal to be a bihur so is the animal of bachor or karbanola that is very very different denim so the gemara there in bra in in temura says that the status of the animal is a bachor because of a koshbot will determine what it should be your declaration cannot overcome or supersede or trump the declaration of what hashem wants says dying so similarly over here if one stipulates that death that they want the assets to go to someone that they determine in their secular civil law but which is the mouthpiece of the mouthpiece of akuras bar who comes along and says i don't want it to go to that person says it should go to someone else. just like the gemara tomura says what god wants comes before what we want similarly over here what god wants will come before what the individual wants and therefore supersedes the second civil will and not the secular civil will it will not be it will not be binding so this was a big finish of ramosa really it's only of ramosa many most others disagree and they disagree with an enormous consequence the consequence with which they're disagreeing about is will it be zela will it be geneva according to ramosa if the beneficiary of the secular will keeps it and does not give it to whomever should have been the best beneficiary according to the according to the will according to moshe they're not a ghanaf whereas according to dying grossness and these other post games that we mentioned that individual would be a god of because the is what should and must and must supersede okay so emotion really is a das when it comes to when it comes to this area okay moving right along we'll start the next the next topic we still haven't gotten to we're not going to get it today maybe we'll get to it next week we have several more parts to this series about so what's the halachic mechanism what do you insert into the will in order to circumvent the halachic formula or hierarchy if you have two children a boy and a girl and you want to give 50 of your assets to each how do you do that because you're violating what the would say so relying or leaving it for a secular will is not enough according to emotion it will work but according to everyone else it will not be enough so what do you do what do you do what about another factor maybe even without ramosa maybe even without ramosha's enormous heritage about secular will what about another halachic institution called mitsula kim divre amaze we recently gave a chabura about mitzvah kings of rames we spoke about some aspects of it but i want to talk about some other aspects of it in the context of our series here on jewish considerations and wills and estates so the gemara in baba basra tells us the following source 32 on page 13. you can perform an act of inquisition of acquisition with a shrive mera even on shabbos normally we don't do transactions on shabbos why mecca remembers asur why because shamarictov might come to write people normally record their transactions that's the responsible thing to do is to record a transaction so therefore a person might record their transaction and come to right but an exception is a shrivera somebody on their deathbed somebody who is considered terminally ill so you are allowed to conan king and you can make a kenyan not you know how to write on shabbos but you can do an active acquisition but this is not done out of concern and the opinion of rebellion gift requires an act of acquisition i will shem a titra of daito love it is because the rabbis are concerned the person's mental condition will deteriorate so it's part of maintaining the person's um well-being which supersedes the laws of shabbos you're allowed to do that kenyan even on shabbos that is allah of a shrive mehra the gemara the the mishnah also there in baba sir rebbi eleazar omer basham is the verb gives his positions orally and shabbos his words are because we forgive the fact that he never wrote it down because because you know that i write in shabbos so let's say a person has no will they have no secular will they have no halachic will they've never recorded an indication of where they want to leave their estate but now it's their deathbed and on their deathbed they say leave it to this one leave it to that one leave it to the other one this is what i want to have happen with my things so they have the status of me and divresh the instructions of someone on their deathbed we treat it as if it was actually a recorded will so when is that such says only on shabbos shabbos you couldn't write it down so if you recited it orally if you articulated what you want then we will consider it binding avalo behold will be sure oh maybe not only on shabbos but even more so during the week even more so so the gemara gittin source 34 explains the following gemara gideon says the principle that you have to obey the commandments of the deceased holy monolith one hand is agent of money he says take this to so-and-so so according to one the money goes to the to the center but according to the bryce another bryce of the money should be given to the heirs of the person to whom it was sent in other words you go try to give it to to to avram but you can't find avraham so do you bring it back to the one who sent you because the instructions was to give it to an avraham do you bring it back to to avraham to do you bring it back to the one who sent you or do you say i couldn't find an avraham but i found it like his son so since i was sent as an agent to deliver to avraham but i couldn't find avraham the next best thing the next closest thing is to give it to yitzhak his son that the gemara records as a mach lucas the gemara continues is not the equivalent of a choir so when you said take this to so-and-so you didn't say acquire it on behalf of so-and-so so as long as the is alive you got to bring the money back to him because the instruction was holy was bring it go with it to him but not acquire it on his behalf if you had said acquired on his behalf then his inheritor would have accepted if he's no longer alive but he said holy bring it and when you got there you found that he's not alive so his son doesn't get it you bring it back to the sender but in a case where the sender died while the recipient was still alive amina and mitzvah and devre you have to listen to the words of the deceased the recipient acquired a claim to the money upon the sender's death even if he subsequently died the money is given to the heirs so here the money git and articulates this principle mitzvah divreihan again we spoke about this you could find it find it on youtube and please subscribe on youtube you can find it on yutora rebecca from goldberg.org we spoke about mitzvah kind of amazed where do we learn it from this with the kind of rames we learn it from yaakov making his son yosef swear that he's not going to bury him in mitzrayim and that he's going to follow through on the instructions to him this is big machlokas we spoke about if there's a mitzvah kind of if there's an obligation to follow the instructions of someone on their deathbed so then why did yaakov have to make yosef swear you remember yosef holds on to the only religious object at the time and he makes an oath he promises his father i won't leave you here in egypt moshe fulfills that promise we just read a couple weeks ago when he takes joseph's bones that was yosef's promise takes yosev's bones but yosef had made a promise to his father yaakov he won't leave him in mitzrayim won't leave him in israel either why did yousaf have the problem promise if mitsula came to rames so some wanted to prove from there how far do we take this principle mitsula kind of does it only apply to monetary issues or does it even apply to non-monetary issues what if the instruction is not financially based what if someone says i don't want you sitting shiva for me i don't want you to suffer that whole year you're not going to be able to go to simchas i want you to be able to go i want you to listen to music i want you to be able to take haircuts so mitzvah i'm different amaze do you follow the will of the one who tells you how far does mitzvah come to every maze go do you have to listen to the will the wishes the words of the deceased only on financial matters or even on non-financial super financial matters so that is a mach locus in a debate centering around why yaakov made yosef take the promise but there's another caveat and toast will end with this and pick up from here next time tussles and getting off your gimbal and also 36. tosos give a very very important limitation to the rule of making dividends that you only apply the obligation to listen to the words of the deceased when you only apply that in an area of when you have a third party holding the money if the money was given to a third party then mitzvah came to rames now it's very interesting we'll pick up with this next time why would there be a tom say that and urbano times view is considered the normative you only apply mitzvah kind of amaze which again the whole reason we came out to this is someone who didn't have a halachic will and they only had a secular or a civil will so do you follow the secular or the civil will that was how he came onto this that was the question according to moshe even the secular or the civil will will be binding that was ramosa but leave out rabosa even before you get to moshe will you apply it do you say mitzvah kind of so rabbenutam has a significant limitation that you will only say mithril kind of if the money has been given to a third party to hold why that is we'll pick up next time and we'll see whether you say mitsuke if somebody doesn't have a will and then we'll get to please god soon eventually how to have a proper halachic will but before we do i implore you one more time even at the point of annoying you brsonline.org slash global there are so many of you who are not members of brs and yet brs pays my salary and rabbi chapters arranges this amazing afternoon cola and all of our programs classes learnings take a moment 18.36 i hope you'll give 180 or more but help us continue to be able to provide you that content all it takes is a moment if you're watching on the portal you could simply click donate do an honor and memory of someone i want to thank the people who have given and ask and encourage and invite all who will give the link is in the chat please click it paste it please go beerusonline.org global have a wonderful day pick up now with rabbi shocket