The arrangement of "heir instead of heir", which is set forth in section 41 of the law, has been changed. According to it, the testator orders that his property pass to heir A, but if heir A does not inherit the testator, for the reasons listed in the law, heir B will come in his shoes. The purpose of this arrangement is to settle a case in which the testator foresees as a possibility a situation in which the person he has designated as his heir will not be able to inherit him. The testator determines an exchange for the first heir that he determined. There is no "interim period" in this arrangement as in the previous arrangement. If heir A inherits the property, then the arrangement is exhausted, and it is completed and paid. Heir A may transfer the property during his lifetime, and bequeath it - whether by will or by law - to whomever he wishes (for details on the various arrangements, see Melamed case (at pp. 711-712); and S. Shiloh, Commentary on the Inheritance Law, 5725-1965 (5752) 365 ff.; S. Shohat, Menachem Goldberg and Y. Plomin, Inheritance and Estate Law (2005) 118)."
The determination of which of the aforementioned arrangements applies has implications for the possibility of amending the will, as written:
"... In other words, a will that includes an "heir after heir" provision imposes an additional obligation on the first heir that does not exist in the case of an "heir instead of heir" provision, and it is possible that such a mutual will provision creates reliance even without the need to exercise the principle of good faith....."
Thus, in the "heir after heir" order, the first heir is entitled to do with what he received from the estate "as his own". This means that the first heir can handle assets inherited by a full-owner custom, including destroying them or transferring them to others through transactions during his lifetime, such as a gift. The only restriction imposed on the first heir is that he cannot detract from the right of the second heir by means of a will. In other words, the transfer of an asset as a gift during the life of the first heir, even if it reduces the share of the second heir, is a valid action, unless an explicit restriction is set in the will. The burden of proving the existence of such a restriction is on the person claiming it.