(based on ruling 82033 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts) <> Case : Sarah was married to Mr. Abrahams, and she gave birth to Reuven. Mr. Abrahams died soon thereafter, and Sarah married Mr. Isaacs, with whom she gave birth to Shimon, Levi, and Yehuda. Mr. Isaacs raised Reuven like a natural father. When Mr. Isaacs died, the brothers convinced Reuven to have Sarah live with him, which required a lot of care and expenses. At first, Reuven and family did not charge for this care, but eventually they asked for pay, until it reached a maximum of 10,000 NIS a month. Mr. Isaacs left all his property to Sarah in a standard, civil will. Sarah died without a will. Reuven wants to receive a quarter of the money that Mr. Isaacs left for Sarah. The other brothers argue that according to Halacha, Mr. Isaac’s inheritance goes to his biological sons. They claim that if Reuven wants to treat them as one full family, the apparently impending inheritance coming from the Abrahams family, should also be split between them, as Sarah should have inherited from Mr. Abrahams.
Ruling : Our beit din follows the ruling of Rav Moshe Feinstein (Igrot Moshe, Even Haezer I:104) that a civil will is valid. Therefore, Sarah inherited all of Mr. Isaacs estate, and now each of her four sons receives an equal part. In general, Halacha seeks to find a way for the intentions of the deceased to be upheld (see Pitchei Teshuva, Choshen Mishpat 252:1, 3), and in this case, there is every indication that Reuven, whom Mr. Isaacs treated like a natural son, would be getting a fourth of the estate after Sarah’s death.
There is no reason to give Reuven’s brothers any part in any potential Abrahams family estate. Even though they argue that according to secular law, Sarah should have been deserving of such an estate, beit din does see why that is the case. This is different from Sarah’s receipt of Mr. Isaac’s estate, which is not based on secular law alone but based on a written will.
The brothers raised complaints about the amount of money Reuven took for caring for their mother. Given that they agreed to pay at the time, it is not clear what practical claim they have to raise. In any case, we want to address the point for the purpose of clearing the air. Everyone agrees that Reuven’s family gave Sarah excellent care and that this included much difficult work and significant expense. It does not appear that the same level of care could have been achieved in a different way for 10,000 NIS. Therefore, the brothers should not harbor grievances on the matter.
What should be returned to the brothers is the money they put into a bank account to be used for their mother’s future expenses.