Translation:Shulchan Aruch/Choshen Mishpat/242

Paragraph 1- If one gives a gift via compulsion, in that they forced him to give, the gift is not valid, even if the donor gave a guarantee on the property in a document, and even if he does not make a declaration. If we know it was forced, there is no gift. Thus, if one gives a declaration on gift that it is void, we would write the declaration for him, even if we don’t know how he is being forced because even if the declaration was a lie, since he has shown that he does not want the gift, it is void.

Paragraph 2- In a case where we are aware of the compulsion and the donor gives a declaration and voids the declaration, the voidance is ineffective because there is compulsion, and even if he did not give a declaration, the gift would be invalid. If he gave a declaration and we were unaware of the compulsion, and he then knowingly voided the declaration, however, the voidance is effective because we are not aware of the compulsion. Thus, we have the custom to write the voidance of declarations in a gift document.

Paragraph 3- Any gift, regardless of whether it is a healthy-gift or a dying-gift, must be open and public. Not only in a case where one told witnesses to hide and write, but even if one simply said write the gift for him, it would not be effective unless he said write in the market and sign publicly or something similar. Thus, any gift-document that does not state, “and the donor told us to sit in the market and streets and write a gift for him that is open and public,” or something in a similar vein, we are concerned it is a hidden-gift and the recipient would not acquire, even if he made a kinyan from him. ''If the recipient grabbed the item and took possession of the gift, we would remove it from him. Nevertheless, if he took possession of the gift from now, there is no issue of a hidden gift. Thus, if the donor wrote in the document to go and take possession effective now, it is as if he wrote write in the market etc. See later in this Siman, Paragraph 7.''

Paragraph 4- If the donor did not instruct to write publicly but did instruct to sign publicly, the gift is valid. Even if the donor did not instruct to give the document with transfer-witnesses, the gift is valid. If he did instruct to give with transfer-witnesses, the gift would be valid even if he did not instruct to sign publicly. The same is true where he instructed that the signing be public but did not instruct on the transfer.

Paragraph 4- There are those who say that today we are not concerned in standard cases because the custom is to write this language in all gift-documents. Thus, when one simply says to write a gift-document, his intention is to write as the scribes have the custom to write and therefore it is as if he said write in the market and sign it publicly. It still better in the first instance to say so explicitly.

Paragraph 6- If a dying man instructed on a gift and said do not reveal this gift and do not tell anyone until after I die, the gift is valid because at the time he is transferring, which is after his death, he said to make it public. If one is instructing what to do when he dies, he does not need to say to publicize the gift. Rather, even if the document was written without specifying, we are not concerned the gift may be hidden.

Paragraph 7- There are those who say that in a case of a hidden-gift if the donor then takes possession of the properties for the recipient or the recipient takes possession in the presence of the donor and the donor does not object, he would acquire the property. This was already discussed in Paragraph 3.

Paragraph 8- If one writes two gift-documents on one field and the first is hidden and the second is open and public, the second recipient would acquire, even if the first was without specification. We do not say the first document has the status of a declaration.

Paragraph 9- If the circumstances were clear that the donor did not want to give this gift, even if he gave it publicly and It was discovered that he earlier gave a hidden gift, both gifts would be void. The first gift would be void because it was hidden and the second would be void because the circumstances indicate that he does not want it, and this gift that was found functions like a declaration.

Paragraph 10- An incident occurred where someone wanted to marry a woman. She told him I will not marry you unless you write over all your properties to me. The man’s oldest son heard and cried to his father that he would leave him destitute. The man told the witnesses go and hide and write a gift on all my properties for my son. He then wrote the woman all his properties and married her. The incident came to the Rabbis and they said neither the son nor the woman acquired the properties because he did not write it willingly and it is as if he was compelled because he showed his intention with the first gift, even though that was void because it was hidden. If there was no first gift, however, the second gift would be valid because that is not called compulsions.