excluding his brother’s two sons, because they are not among the people of the endowment as long as their father is alive; once their father dies, his share becomes theirs. If the third dies, his share is for the two sons of his brother equally, provided he did not leave a child. If he did leave one child, that child has his father’s share, which is one half, and the two cousins have the other half, with each receiving one fourth. If he says: 'Whoever among them dies without leaving a child, whatever was current for him is current for whoever is in his degree.' If the endowment is arranged generation after generation, the share of the one who died without a child goes to the people of the generation to which he belongs. If it is shared among all the generations, it is possible that his share goes to all the people of the endowment, because they are equal in the entitlement to the endowment, so they are in his degree from this perspective; and because if we were to divert his share to only some of them, it would lead to favoring some over others, while participation (tashrik) necessitates equality. Based on this, the existence of this condition is as its non-existence, because had he remained silent about it, the ruling regarding it would be the same. It is also possible that his share returns to the rest of the people of the generation to which he belongs, because they are in his degree in terms of proximity to the ancestor who unites them. In this, his siblings, his cousins, and the children of his father’s paternal cousins are all equal, because they are equal in proximity. Furthermore, if we were to make all the people of the endowment participate in his share, this condition would have no benefit, and the apparent meaning is that he intended something beneficial. Based on this, if there is no one in his degree, this condition is void, and the ruling regarding it is as if he had not mentioned it. If the endowment is upon the first generation, on the condition that whoever among them dies leaving a child, his share transfers to his child, and whoever dies without a child, his share transfers to whoever is in his degree, there are three views on this: First, that his share is between all the people of the endowment, and they are equal in it, whether they are from one generation or from multiple generations, and whether their shares in the endowment are equal or different, for the reason we mentioned before. Second, that it is for the people of the generation