There is no denying that this strengthens the position presented above, according to which there is no room to distinguish between the brothers of the testator from the same parents and his brothers from only one parent [it should be noted that an examination of the Rambam's ruling, quoted above, in its full context, shows that it does not refer to equality of inheritance between the brothers of the bequeathor from one parent and his brothers from both parents, as may be implied by the explanatory notes; but rather to equality in inheritance Only between the brothers of the testator from his father. This is because, according to the aforementioned halakha, the family of the testator's mother has no status, and in any case, the brothers of the testator from his mother alone will not inherit him at all (see the full quote: "The mother's family is not called a family and there is no inheritance except for the father's family, therefore the brothers from the mother do not inherit from each other and the brothers from the father inherit from each other, and one of his brothers who is from his father alone or his brother from his father and mother"). If so, it is clear that it is not possible to conclude from this rule that Jewish law negates the distinction for our purposes between the brother of the testator from one parent and his brother from both parents. See also regarding the law according to Jewish law: Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat, 266:4).
In any event, as I will explain below, the above explanatory notes do not stand alone, and therefore it is highly doubtful whether it can be concluded from them that the legislature's intention was that the testator's brothers - from both parents and from one parent - would necessarily inherit equal parts of his estate. I will clarify:
- First, the significance of the position that underlies the criticism, in practice, is that within the framework of the Article 14 The legislature intended to establish the Inheritance Law Two different distribution arrangements; Thus, unlike other substitutes of the testator's relatives who inherit him and his estate, the The "races" method (According to which, as stated, the testator's relatives with the same degree of kinship to him may inherit unequal parts of his estate, such as, for example, the example in the matter of the grandchildren detailed above in paragraphs 22-23), specifically in the case of the testator's brother, the legislature intended to determine a division according to The "Skull" MethodSo that all of the testator's brothers, including those who share only one parent with him, will necessarily inherit equal parts of his estate. However, this distinction has no basis, since, as we saw above, Article 14 The law has a division effort according to The "Races" Method with respect to each of the parentals. In any case, the position according to which the legislature intended to apply specifically to the matter of the testator's brother, a division According to the "The Skull", whereas in relation to all the other substitutes listed In section 14, division according to the "BreedsThere is no basis in the language of the law. And it is not superfluous to note that the language of the law is a central source Tracing the Legislature's Intent (See: High Court of Justice 9632/17 The Concessionaires Association - For the Lottery and Toto Concessionaires in Israel v. Minister of Finance, verse 23[Nevo] (20.2.2019)).
- Second, as I will show below, the intention of the legislature, as reflected in the same bill from 1952, is to apply the "races" method Anyway in which the testator inherits the successors of his relatives, including when these successors are the testator's brothers.
This is how it was explained there in relation to To the section 16(II) to the proposed law, which is parallel To the section 14(II) of the law (which, as you may recall, states that "Children who inherit in accordance with subsection (a) shall equally divide among themselves what they inherited in this way.":