some of the people of knowledge say that this depends on the authorization; is it an execution [of the will], or a newly initiated gift? If we say: It is a newly initiated gift, then the marriage was annulled before it, so the divorce did not occur. And if we say: It is an execution of what the master did, the divorce occurred. Likewise, if the husband alone authorizes the emancipation by his father, if there is a debt on the father that consumes his estate, she is not emancipated. The correct view is that this does not prevent the transfer of the estate to the heirs, so it is as if there were no debt on him regarding the annulment of the marriage. If the debt does not consume the estate, and she is covered by the third after the debt is paid, she is emancipated and divorced. If she is not covered by the third, she is not entirely emancipated, so her ruling regarding the annulment of the marriage and the prevention of the occurrence of the divorce is as if the debt consumed the estate. If the creditor waives the debt after the death, the divorce does not occur; because the marriage was annulled before his waiver.

Section: On issues that depend on the intention of the swearer and his interpretation; if he says: "If you do not tell me the number of grains in this pomegranate, you are divorced." [Or he ate dates and said: "If you do not tell me the number of what I ate, you are divorced."] And she did not know that, then she counts for him a number that he knows he has reached, such as if it is known that the number is between one hundred and a thousand, so she counts all of that, and he does not break his oath if his intention was that. If he intended informing him of its quantity without any decrease or increase, he is not absolved except by that. If he is absolute (general), the analogy of the school is that he is not absolved except by that as well; because the apparent state of the swearer implies his intent, so his oath turns to it, like customary names to which an oath turns to their customary referent, not their literal referent. If they ate dates, and he said: "If you do not distinguish the pits of what I ate from the pits of what you ate, you are divorced." And she separated every pit alone, the ruling on it is like the one before it. And if she stood in flowing water, and he swore against her: "If you exit it, or remain in it."