After examining the arguments of the parties and the references they brought I am of the opinion that the law is with the appellants.
The question of the relationship between prenuptial agreements and section 8 of the Inheritance Law was addressed in the Supreme Court's ruling. The Supreme Court ruled that a provision in a prenuptial agreement that determines the scope of the estate's assets is valid; while provisions relating to the manner of dividing the estate contradict section 8 of the law and are null and void. This distinction was made by Justice Hendel in a certain case:
"A distinction must be made between making an arrangement to balance resources and examining the estate of the deceased spouse. These are two separate tests. One question is the extent of the assets in the estate. Another question is the manner in which the estate will be divided after its scope has been delineated. In other words, what is the content of the estate versus who is the beneficiary of it? The Property Relations Law deals with the first question of defining the scope of the estate. The Inheritance Law deals with the second issue, which concerns the division of the estate. The two aforementioned laws must be applied in a manner that strives to create harmony between them. The goals and purposes of the two laws do not coincide with each other. Of course, the purpose of both laws is to do justice in the division of assets. However, while the Property Relations Law establishes rules for the division of property in view of the joint life of both spouses on the timeline of the marriage until its expiration, the inheritance law focuses on the moment of death of one of the spouses while establishing rules, along with recognition of the autonomy to one extent or another of the testator" (ibid., at paragraph 4 of the judgment).
Recently, another case was discussed before this panel in which the rivalry between children from chapter A and a relationship from chapter 2 was discussed, as in its case: Family Appeal (Tel Aviv) 31306-01-19 Anonymous v. Anonymous (published in Nevo; February 5, 2020). In that case, the deceased's assets were banquet halls, and the dispute between the parties related to the question of who belonged to the rent from those halls - whether to his children or his widow. In the prenuptial agreement between the deceased and the widow, it was determined that if the husband passed away before the wife, the income from the rent received for the rest of her life would belong to her. On the other hand, the deceased's will stipulated that the halls and rent would belong to his two children. In that case, I expressed my position that a provision granting in a prenuptial agreement can prevail over the provisions of section 8 of the Inheritance Law only "insofar as they relate to the entirety of the balanced assets of the spouses and insofar as it is a matter of regulating the prenuptial relations between them, and between them only" and that "a provision in a prenuptial agreement according to which private property that is not balanceable of any of the spouses will be transferred to the other spouse at the time of the expiration of the marriage due to the death of the granting spouse, It will be null and void because it deviates from the principle of balance and its rules and is clearly concerned with the division of an estate, as opposed to determining the scope of the estate. Similarly, there is also a provision in a prenuptial agreement according to which one spouse instructs that assets that will come to him after his death or the fruits of assets that he owns during his lifetime, and that will come to him after his death, even if they are derived from a balancable asset, will be transferred to the other spouse, and certainly a provision in a prenuptial agreement that grants assets, even if assets are balanced, after death, to the couple's children. Such provisions contradict the provisions of section 8 of the Inheritance Law and should not be given effect" (ibid., at paragraph 8 of the judgment). In applying the facts of that case, I determined that since as of the date of signing the prenuptial agreement the halls were not balancable property, a provision granting income from those halls at the time of death cannot be made within the framework of a prenuptial agreement, but must be made only in a will (ibid., paragraph 9 of the judgment). My opinion in that case was a minority opinion since my colleague the Honorable Justice Shilo was of the opinion that the widow is entitled to the rent by virtue of the clause in the prenuptial agreement being a "granting" clause which should be considered part of the property arrangement (even though we are dealing with an asset that is ostensibly unbalanced) and similar to "alimony from the estate" (paragraph 19 of the opinion) and to this my colleague the Honorable Justice Ravid joined the position of Justice Shiloh. Without deciding the dispute in its entirety, in her opinion, the issue of the balance of assets does not arise in its entirety, but rather it is a specific provision regarding the fruits of the property (paragraph 4 of her opinion).