The doctrine is that it suffices. The companions of al-Shafi'i said: It does not suffice, because the consideration is given to the condition at the time of making it obligatory, and because its increase [in value] was for the sake of the poor, just as its decrease after making it obligatory does not prevent it from being an animal for sacrifice. Our evidence is that this is an animal for sacrifice of a type that suffices, so it suffices, just as if he had not made it obligatory until after its defect had ceased.

1758 - Issue: He said: "And the animal for sacrifice of a deceased person shall not be sold to pay his debt, and his heirs shall eat from it."

This means if he makes an animal for sacrifice obligatory and then dies, it is not permissible to sell it, even if the deceased has a debt that cannot be paid off. This is the view of Abu Thawr, and it resembles the school of al-Shafi'i. Al-Awza'i said: If he left a debt that cannot be paid except from it, it shall be sold for that purpose. Malik said: If the heirs dispute regarding it, they shall sell it. Our evidence is that its slaughter has been determined; therefore, its sale to pay his debt is not valid, just as if he were alive. Once this is established, his heirs take his place in consuming, giving in charity, and gifting from it, because they take the place of the deceased regarding what he possesses and what is upon him.

Section: There is a difference of opinion regarding whether it is permissible to perform the sacrifice on behalf of an orphan from his wealth. It was narrated that the guardian does not have this right, because it is the disbursement of something from his wealth without compensation, so it is not permitted, like charity and gifts. This is the school of al-Shafi'i. It was also narrated that the guardian may perform the sacrifice on his behalf if he is wealthy (musir). This is the view of Abu Hanifa and Malik. Malik said: If he possesses thirty dinars, one may perform a sacrifice on his behalf with a sheep for half a dinar, because it is an expenditure of wealth related to the Day of Eid, so it is permitted to expend it from the orphan's wealth, like the charity of breaking the fast (sadaqat al-fitr). According to this, its disbursement from his wealth is for the sake of expansion for him, bringing happiness to his heart, and involving him with his peers on such a day, just as one buys for him high-quality clothing for adornment, fine food, and provides him with generous spending even if that is not mandatory. It is possible that the words of Ahmad in the two narrations be interpreted regarding two situations: the situation in which he prohibited the sacrifice is when the orphan is a child who does not understand the sacrifice, does not rejoice in it, and whose heart is not broken by neglecting it, due to the lack of benefit in it, so the expenditure of its price results in wasting wealth without benefit. The situation in which he permitted it is when the orphan understands it, is comforted by it, and is saddened by omitting it, due to the attainment of benefit from it and the harm in missing it.