If they reject, they divide the third into two equal parts, so the legatee of the third receives only a sixth in both the case of permission and rejection. If he had placed a sixth in place of the third, the owner of the [rest of the] wealth would have five-sixths in the case of permission; he would share with the owner of the sixth, taking half of it, and there would remain for the owner of the sixth half of it, which is one share out of twelve. In the case of rejection, they divide the third between them in thirds, so he would assign to the owner of the sixth a ninth, which is one share out of nine, and that is more than what he obtained in the case of permission. This is evidence for the corruption of this opinion, due to the increase of the share of the legatee in the case of rejection over the state of permission. Whenever the legatee has a right in the case of rejection, it is not appropriate for the heir to be able to alter it, reduce it, take it from him, or divert it to someone else, especially given that the position held by the majority has parallels in issues of 'awl (proportional reduction) in fixed shares and debts against an insolvent person, while what they have mentioned has no parallel. Furthermore, the share designated by God Almighty for the heir is more emphatic than the share of the testator and his legacy, and the owner of the surplus [in a fixed share] does not possess his surplus exclusively, so it is the same in legacies.
Section: If he leaves behind two sons and bequeaths to a man his entire wealth and to another half of it, the wealth is between the two legatees in three parts if they permit [it]; because if you expand the wealth from the type of the fraction, it becomes two halves, so when you add the other half, it becomes three. Thus, the wealth is divided into three, and the half becomes a third, similar to an issue containing a husband, a mother, and three sisters of different relations. If they reject, the third is between them in three parts. If they permit [only] for the owner of the half alone, then the owner of the [entire] wealth receives two-ninths, and the owner of the half receives the half in one of the two opinions; because he is the legatee for it, and what prevented him from taking it in the state of permission for both of them was the competition from his companion. So, when his competition is removed, he takes all of
(11) In the original: "asdasuhu" (its sixths). (12) Omitted from the original. (13) Omitted from the original and A. (14) In M: "mutafarriqat" (different). (15) In M: "ihda" (one of). (16) Omitted from the original and M.
