The second benefit:

His statement, “For his children, then his children’s children”—through to his words, “in perpetuity, as long as they have descendants, and forever, as long as one generation succeeds another”—establishes his descendants’ entitlement to the endowment. If someone dies leaving only people of his own generation and his grandchildren, the condition excludes those of his own generation, while the children remain included under the first wording when read together with the second.

Thus, his statement, “For my children, then my children’s children,” taken together with his statement, “On condition that the share of anyone who dies without children passes to his siblings,” shows us that the share of someone who dies leaving children passes to his children. This is because they fall within the general scope of his words, “My children’s children.” Those of the deceased’s own generation were also included within that general scope; when the condition excluded them, the child’s offspring remained included. The same applies whenever a general expression encompasses two categories and one is excluded: the other necessarily remains. This is a second indication that the share of someone who dies leaving children passes to his children. It arises from the general wording, within whose scope only they remain, and is distinct from the indication conveyed by implication.

If you wish, you may express this by saying: the deceased’s share belongs either to the children or to the children’s children, since his words, “For my children, then for their children,” indicate that entitlement to the endowment is confined to these two categories. Since he has barred the children from receiving the share of someone who dies leaving children, it must belong to the other category.

It remains possible to object: “There may be someone who belongs neither to the deceased’s own generation nor to his offspring.”

We reply: If the benefit is evident in some cases, the intended point is established. The case under discussion is one such case, for we have addressed only the deceased’s share: is it to be given to his siblings or to his children?