The difference between the two views is this: if we say that it was invalid from the outset, then any increase accruing between the time of the gift and the father’s death belongs to the heirs, because the gift was not valid in the first place. But if we say that it was valid, while the heirs nevertheless have the right to reclaim it, then any separate increase belongs to the donee.

In any case, the view that the gift remains effective is weak. The correct view is that the favored child must return the additional amount to the estate, or it is deducted from his share.

If someone were to ask: Suppose one of the children needs a car while the others do not, because the first child’s school is far away whereas the others’ school is nearby. Is it permissible to buy a car for the child who needs one, since he needs it?

It is not permissible, because he needs only its benefit—namely, riding it to school and returning from it. This can be achieved by registering the car in the father’s name while leaving its use to the child, so that when the father dies, the car returns to the estate. A person is not permitted to transfer ownership of the car to the child, because the objective is to meet the need, and that can be done without transferring ownership. For he may give him a car worth sixty thousand today, and the father may die tomorrow.

Therefore, we say: This is an issue to which attention must be paid. If one child needs a car while the others do not, we do not give the needy child a car registered in his own name. Rather, the car remains in the father’s name, and the child’s need is met by his use of it; when the father dies, it returns to the estate.

Thus, the stronger view is that if he dies, the gift does not remain effective, and it must be returned to the estate.