Siman 54

The Rambam, of blessed memory, wrote at the end of the twentieth chapter: One who commanded to give his daughter such and such money for her maintenance to purchase land with them, whether he was a shekhiv mera or whether he was healthy, and he died and the money is in the hand of the trustee, and the daughter said, "Give them to my husband, let him do with them whatever he desires," if she was an adult and married, the authority is in her hand; and if she is still betrothed, the trustee shall do what was entrusted to his hand; and if she is still a minor, even if she is married, we do not listen to her, but rather the trustee shall do as the father commanded. Thus far his words. And so wrote the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch, and the reason is because of the commandment to fulfill the words of the deceased. And regarding an adult married woman, we act according to her words because even the father did not intend to hand them over to the hand of a trustee except until she marries, for once she is married the husband is entitled to consume the produce, and only regarding a minor do we not fulfill her will because she has no will and perhaps she will retract once she grows up. And in a case where the trustee does not act according to her words, even if she says that the husband should purchase land with them according to his testament, nevertheless we do not listen to her for the reason that has been explained, and regarding an adult married woman, even if she said explicitly that the husband should do what he desires, we listen to her as has been written.

And the father's command was not that she should not merit the money now except to purchase a field with them, for had he said so, even without the reason that it is a mitzvah to fulfill the words of the deceased, we would not listen to her, as she only merited them in this manner; rather, he granted her merit in them from now, but commanded that they should purchase a field for her from them. Therefore, were it not for the reason that it is a mitzvah to fulfill the words of the deceased, we would give them to her immediately, for they are entirely hers [Ran ibid.]. According to this, if he truly said to him that she should not merit the money except to purchase a field, even if she is an adult and married, the trustee shall fulfill it and purchase a field for her, and the husband shall consume the produce.

And if the trustee purchased the field and she afterwards desires to sell it and give the money to her husband—the authority is in her hand. However, if he left land to his daughter and died and she says, "Whatever my husband desires, let him do"—the husband has no authority to sell the land, for even she has no authority to sell land that she inherited from her father until she is twenty years old, as is written in Choshen Mishpat siman 235. But land that the trustee purchased, they are permitted to sell, for she did not inherit this from her father, and in this case she does not need to be twenty years old, as is written there.

And there are some of our teachers who hold that even land that the third party purchased, she does not have the power to sell, and it is possible that the reason is that since he commanded to purchase a field, its law is like land she inherited and she is not permitted to sell before she is twenty years old; but most of the great Rishonim hold according to the first opinion, and they wrote so in the name of our teacher, Hai Gaon. On the contrary, there are some of the poskim who hold that even land she inherited she is permitted to sell.

An adult son or an adult daughter for whom the father left money in the hands of a trustee—the trustee shall hand it over to them after his death, and we do not say that he appointed him as an apotropus over them; only regarding minors do we say that his intention was for apotropus-ship [Shitah Mekubetzet there in the name of the Gaon], unless the father explicitly commanded what the trustee should do with them and that he should not hand them over in any other manner, for then he is obligated to fulfill as he commanded. Our teacher, the Rema, wrote that even in one who places in trust for his daughter, some say that we require that it was placed in trust from the beginning for that purpose, thus far his words. This is based on the foundation explained in Choshen Mishpat siman 252, that we do not say it is a mitzvah to fulfill the words of the deceased except when it was placed in trust from the beginning for that purpose, see there. However, there is one who says that in this case, where it is for the benefit of his daughter so that he should not give it to her husband, we say it is a mitzvah to fulfill the words of the deceased even without it being placed in trust from the beginning for that purpose [Derishah u-Perishah], and there are those who disagree on this [Beit Shmuel]. And there are some of the great authorities who wrote that what we wrote regarding an adult daughter from the time of betrothal, that the trustee shall do as the father commanded, this is when he left other heirs, for she has no right to the money except by virtue of his trusteeship, and therefore he is obligated to fulfill according to the trusteeship. But if she is the sole heir, then only if she is a minor shall the trustee fulfill according to the command, but not when she is an adult; for she immediately merited the money by virtue of the inheritance, and the inheritance nullifies the trusteeship, as this money was not placed in the hands of a trustee as a gift but rather as a deposit, and a Torah inheritance applies to all the money wherever it is. And even though the father explicitly commanded "do not give it to her until she marries" or "until such-and-such a time," they shall give it to her, for he is like one who stipulates against what is written in the Torah, and his condition is void [Shitah Mekubetzet in the name of Talmidei Rabbeinu Yonah]. However, from what is written in Choshen Mishpat siman 253 regarding one who says "give a shekel to my sons every week" when it suffices for them, that they do not give them more—it does not imply so, see there [and also in this sugya of the one who places in trust, which compares to this, it does not imply so, see there, and it requires further study as to the law].