the clauses; in that case, it would merely confirm what was already understood, since we would in any event assign the share of someone who dies without children to those of his own generation.”

This may be answered in several ways:

First: We have already explained that this supposed benefit is invalid. No reasonable person would say:

“All these people, of both earlier and later generations, share in the endowment. If someone dies without children, his siblings alone receive his share, to the exclusion of his parents and paternal uncles. But if someone dies leaving children, no one has an exclusive entitlement to his share, neither his children nor anyone else.”

No one has done this, nor would anyone who fully considers its implications. It is equivalent to saying:

“Give to those distantly related to me and to the deceased, and deprive those closely related to me and to the deceased.”

As for the assertion that people customarily intend such an arrangement, we know of no one who has intended it.

Second: We have already disputed that this wording entails joint entitlement, so the supposed benefit falls away.

Third: Applying the condition to all the clauses has several benefits.

The first is that its express wording indicates that the share of someone who dies without children passes to those of his own generation. Its implication, which is stronger than its express wording, indicates that the share of someone who dies leaving children passes to his children, as previously explained.