On the principle of equality
- As will be recalled, the appellant further argues that The Inheritance Law seeks to ensure equal treatment between heirs with the same degree of closeness to the testator; and hence an approach that distinguishes between types of siblings is inconsistent with this goal. In the criticism expressed in the literature as well, it was argued, as noted, that the said distinction is incompatible with the principle of equality between heirs, which is established In section 13 The law, and "discriminates" the brother of the testator from one parent as opposed to his brother from both parents (see: Shilo, at pp. 150-151; Corinaldi, at p. 103).
- Indeed, as we saw above, they Article 13 The law has Article 14, anchoring the principle of equality. Thus, distribution Egalitarian Guaranteed between the person who is present in each parentlet (between the testator's children, between his parents and his parents' parents, as stated In section 13 to the law), as well as between suitors who come in the shoes of their parents, who disagree with each other in a way that Egalitarian their parents' share of the testator's estate (Section 14(b) of the law). However, as clarified above, the said equality in the division that is fixed In section 14(b) The law (by virtue of which, as we recall, the brother of the testator inherits the testator) is equality between Children In relation toParent theirs as substitutes, not equality between Heirs In relation toMorish (As mentioned In section 13 to the law).
- It should be emphasized that The Inheritance Law Does not distinguish between the brother of the testator from both parents and his brother from one parent As such, , and in any case does not attribute a moral or emotional inferiority to the closeness between siblings who share only one parent. Just as there may be an unequal division of the testator's estate among his grandchildren, without this stemming from an implicit assumption in the Inheritance Law regarding the lesser kinship of any of the said grandchildren to the testator's grandfather, so too an unequal division between the testator's brothers does not embody a position that diminishes the closeness of a testator to his brothers from one parent compared to his closeness to his siblings from both parents.
Interim Summary
- Division of the testator's estate between His brother From both parents and His brother One parent is not necessarily equal. As explained above, in the framework of Article 14 The Inheritance Law Adopted Sweeping the principle of the division of inheritance according to the "races" method, as opposed to the "skull" method; As a result, relatives of the testator with the same degree of closeness to him - including his brothers - may inherit unequal portions of his estate. This interpretation is consistent with the language of the law; with the intention of the legislature, as expressed in the 1952 proposal as a whole; and with the principle of equality enshrined in the law Inheritance.
A Study of Comparative Law
- In a criticism expressed in the literature, it was argued that an arrangement that may lead to an unequal division of the estate of the bequeathor between his brothers from one parent and his brother from both parents, is inconsistent with the tendency in many modern countries to divide equally between them (see: Shilo, at p. 149). However, as will be detailed below, a look at the comparative law reveals a variety of arrangements on the question of the manner of dividing the estate of the testator between his siblings from one parent and his brothers from both parents, including arrangements of the type prescribed in the Inheritance Law.
- Arrangement of the type Sunday Expressly states that the testator's brother from the same parents and his brother from the same parent will necessarily inherit him in equal shares. Thus he held The Inheritance Law The American Uniform, prior to its amendment in 2019, as will be clarified below (Unif. Probate Code § 2-107 (amended 2019) (Hereinafter: UPC)). This type of arrangement has even been adopted by many states in the United States (e.g., the states of Arizona, California, and Utah, see respectively: Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 14-2107 (2026); Cal. Prob. Code § 6406 (2026); Utah Code Ann. § 75-2-107 (2026); See also: Ralph C. Brashier, Half-Bloods, Inheritance, and Family, 37 U. Mem. L. Rev. 215,232,238-240 (2007) (Hereinafter: Brashier)); And: Shilo, at p. 149); and a similar arrangement was established in Canada as well (see: The Intestate Succession Act, 2019, SS 2019, c I-13.2, §11(b)).
In the 2019 amendment to the American Uniform Inheritance Law, the said arrangement was amended by stating that the testator's sibling inherits it regardless of the number of parents they share. Thus, the current wording focuses on the testator's brother's fundamental right to inherit him, and omits the reference to the portion that the testator's brother inherits from one parent as opposed to a brother from two parents [it should be noted that in the said amendment it was clarified that the previous wording was amended because the reference to "blood" is outdated, taking into account that parental relationships are formed in a variety of ways ("to remove the references to blood, which are outdated given that parent-child relationships are formed in many ways [...] "; See: UPC). Therefore, it is possible that the current position of the said law regarding the equal division between the testator's brother from one parent and the testator's brother from both parents has not changed.] It should be noted that Australian law also provides that in determining the relationship with the testator, the question of whether the relationship with the testator is full or semi-blood is not important (Administration and Probate Act 1969 (pt III div 4) § 61(2)(b) (Austl.)), without regard to the significance of this determination, if any, with regard to the manner of distribution.
- In order of type Monday, the brother of the testator from one parent will not necessarily inherit the testator, if the testator left behind a brother from both parents. This arrangement is fixed in English law (see: Administration of Estates Act 1925,15 & 16 Geo. 5, c. 23, § 46(1)(v) (U.K.)) and in the state of Mississippi in the United States (see: Miss. Code Ann. § 91-1-5 (LexisNexis, Lexis through the 2025 Reg. Sess.); And see more: Brashier, at pp. 245-246).
- Arrangement of the type Tuesday Provides that the testator's siblings who share one parent will necessarily inherit a smaller portion of the testator's estate that is prescribed by law (such as half or one-third), as opposed to his siblings who share two parents. This arrangement has been adopted by other states in the United States (e.g., in the states of Missouri, Virginia, and Florida, see, respectively: Mo. Rev. Stat. § 474.040 (2026); Va. Code Ann. § 64.2-202(B) (2026); Fla. Stat. Ann. § 732.105 (2026); See also: Brashier, at pp. 251-252).
- Arrangement of the type Wednesday It is a neutral arrangement in nature, in which if the testator leaves behind siblings from both parents and siblings from one parent, then half of his estate is divided to his brother from his mother and half to his brother from his father, so that his siblings from both parents may inherit a larger share than his siblings from one parent. In these circumstances, the ratio between the share inherited by the testator's brothers from one parent and the portion inherited by his brothers from both parents is not fixed, but depends on the family structure. This arrangement has been adopted in other states in the United States (e.g., in the states of Iowa, Kansas, and Louisiana, see, respectively: Iowa Code § 633.219(3) (2026); Kan. Stat. Ann. § 59-508 (2026); La. Civ. Code Ann. art. 893 (2026); See also: Brashier, H.S. 133 at p. 252, and at pp. 253-254).
- Thus, it seems that the first, second, and third arrangements embody the positions of those countries with regard to the nature of the testator's kinship to his brother from one parent, or with respect to his presumed will regarding the portion of his brother's estate from one parent (see, in connection with the second and third arrangements: Brashier, at pp. 250-251). These positions lead to the adoption of the principle Rigid Something in relation to the manner in which the testator's estate is divided to his brothers from one parent: equal division according to the "skull" method, in the first arrangement; exclusion when the testator left a brother from both of his parents, in the second arrangement; and inheriting a smaller part permanently and firmly than the testator's brother from both parents, in the third arrangement. In contrast, the fourth arrangement is neutral in nature, and does not derive from any assumption regarding the nature of the kinship between the testator and his siblings from one parent. This neutrality is expressed in the principle of representation, which as a result of its implementation, the portion that the testator's brother will inherit from one parent may be smaller than the portion that the testator's brother inherits from both of his parents.
- Thus, an arrangement of the fourth type has been adopted in our Inheritance Law. Admittedly, this arrangement may lead to an unequal division between the brothers of the testator from one parent and his brothers from both parents; but this result does not stem from a rigid principle, or from a normative position with respect to the nature of the testator's kinship to his siblings from one parent, but rather from the principle of representation through which equality is ensured between the direct heirs of the testator - his parents, and between the children, the testator's brothers, in relation to their parents.
Implementation of all the aforesaid in our matter
- The appellant - my deceased brother from the mother - is an heir In equal parts with his brother, the respondent, the mother's share in the deceased's estate, which stands at half of the total estate; that is, the appellant inherits a quarter of the deceased's estate; whereas the respondent - the deceased's brother Secondary his parents - heirs as aforesaid half of the mother's share of the deceased's estate (i.e., Quarter of the estate), and also inherits the father's full share of the deceased's estate, which also stands at half. Thus, the respondent inherits three-quarters of the deceased's estate, and the appellant inherits, as stated, only one-quarter.