Gafë of a vow
of freedom to
the laß pur-
chafed Have.
does not apply to the third flave, wherefore he is not tha firfi. If, however,
this man had faid i the firft flave that I purchafe fingly is free,”
the third flave would be liberated, becaufe. here the vower has intended
fingularity at the time o f purchafe, and this one is the firft with
refpeö to fuch Angularity..
I f a man fay “ the laß flave that I buy. is free,” 1 and he fhould
purchafe a flave, and then die, yet the {lave fó purehafed is not free;
becaufe the term the laß applies to the individual adjunä * , and as no
other has preceded this one, he cannot- be confidered -as adjunä ;. but
if the vower- were to die after having purehafed another flave, this
flave is free as being the individual adjunä. It is to be obferved that
this fecond'flaye is free (according to Haneefa) from the day o f ' pur-
ehafe; and being free from the date o f the purchafe, the fame is regarded
as from the whole, o f the property-of the' deceafed, on account
of his having releafed him during health.— T h e two difbiples fay that
he is emancipated upon the death of that perfon, and hence it Js rer
garded as from the th ird 'o i his property, only, on account of the deceafed
having, emancipated him upon his deathbed: for they argue that
the pofteriority of that flave cannot be fully eftablifhed, until fuch time
as it becomes certain that no other can be purehafed after him; and
this cannot poffibly be determined but by death j hence the condition
is found upon the mailer’ s' deceafe, and the. freedom-,of the flave is-
therefore alfo eftablifhed upon that event. The argument of Haneefa
is that the pofteriority o f the flave is afeertained.by the mafter’s .deceafe,
but the defeription of pofteriority applies to him from the period
of the purchafe.— T h e fufpenfion.of a triplicate divorce upon pofteriority
is alfo fubjeft to the fame difference of opinion :— in other words,
if a man vow “ the 1-aft woman I marry fhall be thrice- divorced,” and
he firft marry one woman, and afterwards- another, and then die,
three divorces take place upon the fecond wife, according to Haneefa-,
*- Arab.. Faz£'Lah>h~Ax\s a term ufedfolely in grammar.
infomuch
iufornucflth^tfrie canqpt,inherit qf the deceafed: but .according fo. the
two difciplss the three .divorces take jplag$ upe>p her frocp the day
of her hufband’ s -deepale, and coniccjuently .(he flops inherit of
him. . ,
I f a man fay “ whoever of my (laves congratulates me upon the Cafe of a vow
J _ '? ■ O '. i of freedom to
“ delivery ,of my wife (hall be free,” and afterwards feveral of his-flaves whoever of
fucceflivcly fhould inform him of his wife’ s delivery, the one who firft congratuiatc
brought the intelligence only is fre.e; hecaufe by Bijhdrit [which is
here rendered congratulation) is meant any intelligence which isporks a child.
change upon the countenance, whether that intelligence be agreeable or
olherwife, (but yet in common ufage, it is requifite that the intelligence
be agreeable,) and this defeription is fully found only in the
fir fi intelligence,— -in the fecond, ■ or third, becaufe no change
is by that wrought upon the conntpnance.-^-If, however, the flaves
all bring him the news together, they are all free, as-tho .fijh d jit then
proceeds equally from all.
If a man were to fay “ if I purchafe a flave he fliall J be free,” and Theemayd. . 1 . . pation ox a
he afterwards purchafe a flave, with a view, by his relpafe, to_ effeft flave, in conthe
expiation of a vow, this does not fuffice for expiation ; becaufe it vmv^does'm«
is requifite that the intention of expiation be aflociated with theocca- **uffice for “ “ ■ - t. . . r piation;
fion of manumiffion, which is pot the Cafe here, as the vow is the
caufe of manumiffion in the prefent cafe, and at the time of making
it expiation was not the intention of the vower; and as to the purchafe
o f the flave, that is not the occafon of the manumiffion, but rather the
condition of it.
If a man purchafe, as a flave, his own father, with a view to the buttheeman-
expiation of a vow, it fuffices, with our doftors. This is contrary to the /hll'r,"in *
opinion o f Zijfer and Shafei, who contend that the a£t of purchafing a fa- of” urehafe*
ther is the condition of manumiffion, and not the occcfon o f it, as the oc- fuffices.
caftan of it is relationjhip ; (for purchafe is an efablifhment o f right o f pro-
Z z z 2 pert/.