And he said: "If I divorce one of you, then a slave of mine is free, and if I divorce two, then two slaves are free, and if I divorce three, then three slaves are free, and if I divorce four, then four slaves are free." Then he divorced the four, either collectively or separately, ten of his slaves are freed: one for the first, two for the second, three for the third, and four for the fourth, due to the combination of these four conditions in them. If he suspended that with the word "whenever," it has been said: ten are also freed. The correct view is that fifteen slaves are freed, because among them are four conditions, they are four, so four are freed; they are four units, so four are freed by that; they are two and two, so four are freed by that; and among them are three, so three are freed by them. If you wish, you may say: one is freed by the first, and three are freed by the second because it contains two conditions—it is one, and it is two with the first. Four are freed by the third because it is one, and it is three with the first and second. Seven are freed by the fourth because it contains three conditions—it is one, it is two with the third, and it is four with the three that preceded it. This is preferable to the first, because its proponent does not consider the condition of the divorce of the one in other than the first, nor the condition of duality in the third and the fourth. The word "whenever" implies repetition, so the repetition of divorce is necessary with the repetition of the conditions. It was said: seventeen are freed, because the condition of duality has been found three times, as it is found by adding the second to the third. It was said: twenty are freed. This is the opinion of Abu Hanifa, because the condition of three has been found a second time by adding the second and third to the fourth. Both opinions are invalid because they counted the second with the first in the condition of duality once, then counted it with the third another time, and they counted the second and third in the condition of triplicity twice: once with the first and once with the fourth. What is counted in a condition once may not be counted in that condition another time. For this reason, if he said: "Whenever you eat half a pomegranate, you are divorced," and she ate a pomegranate, she would not be divorced except twice, because the pomegranate is two halves. It is not said that she is divorced a third time by combining the second quarter with the third quarter so they become a third half. Likewise, in our issue, the first is not combined with the fourth so that they become two.