An application for leave to appeal that was filed against our judgment in the aforementioned family appeal was rejected by the Supreme Court (the Honorable Justice Mazuz, joined by the other members of the panel, the Honorable President Hayut and Justice Kara), which held that the case did not justify granting leave to appeal (in Tax Appeal 1811/20 Anonymous et al. v. Anonymous, published in Nevo; April 13, 2021). The Honorable Justice Mazuz did not rule on the issue of the relationship between a prenuptial agreement and section 8 of the Inheritance Law, and although he included a number of these comments, "they did not establish innovations or decide disputes, but rather a review of the previous ruling and clarification of it without reservation about it... In the judgment, no halacha was established, and in any case no new ruling was established, difficult or one that contradicts previous rulings." This is how the Supreme Court (the Honorable Justice Hendel) reasoned the rejection of a request filed to hold an additional hearing in the transfer of a hearing given in the same tax appeal 1811/20 (see additional civil hearing 2937/21 Anonymous et al. v. Anonymous, published in Nevo; May 27, 2021, at paragraph 2).
In these circumstances, and given that since the decision was rendered in the aforementioned Civil Appeal 2937/21, the Supreme Court has not once again addressed the issue of the relationship between a prenuptial agreement and section 8 of the Inheritance Law - in the position that I expressed 5 years ago in the framework of my judgment in Family Appeal 31306-01-19 [Nevo] I hold even today, for the same reasons that I enumerated in that judgment that there is no room to repeat. Indeed, since the decision was given to transfer the place of the aforementioned hearing, on March 30, 2021, a memorandum of the Inheritance Law was published (which was also referred to by the Honorable Justice Mazuz Bin the Tax Appeal 1811/20) [Nevo], in which it was proposed to amend section 8 of the Inheritance Law, so that prenuptial agreements would be excluded from the prohibition on making future transactions in a person's inheritance. If the memorandum of law is passed, a clear statement will be made by the legislature on the subject and it will be determined that it is possible to include inheritance provisions in prenuptial agreements. Since the memorandum has not yet been passed, my working assumption is that this is not the rule at this time, and that it is not possible to include inheritance provisions in prenuptial agreements, without these contradicting the provisions of the Inheritance Law.