three times. It is also possible that he is not entitled to anything, because she requested an annulment from him, and he did not respond to her request, instead causing a divorce to occur that she did not ask for, and for which she did not offer compensation. Based on this, it is possible that the divorce occurs as revocable, because he initiated it without compensation being offered, similar to if he divorced her as an initiation. It is also possible that it does not occur, because he made it occur in exchange for compensation, so if the compensation is not realized, it does not occur, because it is like a condition for it, similar to if he said: 'If you give me a thousand, you are divorced.' If she says, 'Khula' me for a thousand,' and he says, 'I have performed Khula' (khala'tuki) upon you,' if we say that it is a divorce, he is entitled to the thousand because he divorced her, and even if he intended divorce by it, it is the same because it is a metonymy (kinayah) for it. If he did not intend divorce and we say it is not a divorce, he is not entitled to compensation, because he did not respond to her regarding what she offered the compensation for, nor does it include it, because she asked him for a divorce that would reduce the number of his divorces, and he did not respond to her with that. When the compensation is not due, the Khula' is not valid, because he only performed the Khula' believing that the compensation would be realized, so if it is not realized, it is not valid. It is also possible that it is like a Khula' without compensation, containing the disagreement that exists therein.

Section: If she says to him, 'Divorce me ten times for a thousand,' and he divorces her once or twice, he has nothing, because he did not respond to her as she requested, so he is not entitled to what she offered. If he divorces her three times, he is entitled to the thousand, according to the analogy of our scholars' position in the case where she says, 'Divorce me three times for a thousand.' If only one divorce remains for her, and he divorces her once, he is entitled to the thousand, because the entire intended goal has been achieved by that.

Section: If only one divorce remains for her, and she says, 'Divorce me three times for a thousand,' and he says, 'You are divorced twice; the first is for a thousand, and the second is for nothing,' the first occurs and he is entitled to the thousand, but the second does not occur. If he says, 'The first is for nothing,' it occurs alone and he is not entitled to anything, because he did not assign compensation to it, and the three are completed. If he says, 'One of them is for a thousand,' the thousand is binding upon her, because she requested from him one divorce for a thousand, and he responded to her request, adding another.

Section: If she says, 'Divorce me for a thousand in a month,' or she gives him a thousand on the condition that he divorces her in a month,