The result is that where the testator's two parents died before him, some of the brothers Secondary The parents in the testator's estate, will be greater than the share of siblings from just one parent.
- The conclusion from all that has been said so far is that according to the arrangements set forth in the law Inheritance The division of the testator's estate between his brothers from the same parents and his brothers from only one parent is not necessarily equal.
- Although this conclusion is well consistent with the language and logic of the law, I will examine the purpose of the law below, in light of the criticism that was voiced in the legal literature on the above interpretation (which, as noted, was adopted in the matter of Habsha, and subsequently, it seems that it has also been adopted In the rulings of the trial courts, see, for example: The Estate Case (Family Case) 38434-12-20 M.A. v. Estate of the deceased S.S., paras. 6,8, 13-15 [Nevo] (May 9,2022); T (Registrar of Inheritance Affairs in Be'er Sheva) 65747 Z. v. Y., verses 4,10-6 [Nevo] (August 16,2022); See also: Corinaldi, p. 105). Thus, for example, the opinion was expressed that it is appropriate to adopt an interpretation according to which the inheritance of a testator will be divided equally among his brothers, without distinguishing between the brothers of the testator from the same parents and the brothers of the testator from one parent. It was argued that the proposed interpretation According to which the distribution of the estate of the testator between his brothers from the same parents and his brothers from the same parents is not necessarily equal, is inconsistent with the principle of equality set forth in the Inheritance Law; with the modern tendency in many countries to equality between the brothers of the testator from one parent and his brother from both parents (see: Shilo, at pp. 149-152; Corinaldi, at pp. 103-105); and with the intention of the legislature as expressed in the explanatory notes to the Inheritance Bill of 1952 (Ministry of Justice The Inheritance Bill (1952) (hereinafter: The 1952 bill or The 1952 proposal)). I will note that this criticism was also adopted by the Family Court inEstate Portfolio 44229-11-17 [Nevo], on which the appellant relies as aforesaid.
- I believe that not only is the conclusion I reached well consistent with the language of the law, but it is also consistent with the The intention of the legislature and with the principle of equality, as it is anchored in the Inheritance Law. I will also show that this interpretation is consistent with customary arrangements in various legal systems overseas.
The Legislature's Intention
- The inheritance arrangement according to the law, which is fixed Sections 10,12, and 13 and14 The law was further stipulated in the original version of the law enacted in 1965 (see: the original version of the Sections 10,12,13,14 and15 to the Inheritance Law, 5725-1965,68 63). The explanatory notes to the bill that led to its enactment as aforesaid in 1965 refer to the explanatory notes to the 1952 bill, noting that "there are only a few differences between that bill and the proposal submitted herein. Therefore, those explanatory notes, which are given to each and every clause of the same proposal, can be used, usually, as well as to explain the provisions that are now being proposed" (Explanatory Notes to the Bill The Inheritance Law, 5718-1958 Government Bill 212,236). Therefore, the explanatory notes of the 1952 bill are relevant for the purpose of tracing the legislature's intention in our case.
- Indeed, in the explanatory notes to the 1952 proposal, it was noted, in relation to To the section 16(A) to the proposed law (the parallel To the section 13 The law, according to which, as stated, "the children of the testator divide among themselves equally, as well as the parents of the testator share between them and the parents of his parents between them"), as follows:
"There are quite a few laws [...] that distinguish between brothers and sisters of the testator 'of the whole blood [...]) and brothers and sisters of 'mother or father only' (of the half blood [...]) and give the former a larger share of the estate or even the entire estate. [...] Jewish law rejects this distinction: "And one of his brothers who is from his father alone or his brother from his father and mother" (Rambam, Laws of Inheritance, chapter one, halacha 6), as well as most of the laws of the land, and even our proposal" (at p. 55).