the bequeathed item; because every right attached to the physical entity attaches to its substitute, provided the cause of entitlement has not become void. It differs from a spouse and a leased item, because the cause of entitlement becomes void with their loss. It is possible that the value becomes obligatory for the heir or the owner of the physical entity, and the bequest becomes void, because the value is a substitute for the physical entity, so it belongs to its owner, and the bequest of the benefit becomes void, just as the lease becomes void (29).

Section: If one bequeaths to a man the grain of his crop, and to another the plant [itself], it is valid, and the expense is between them; because the right of each of them is attached to the crop. If one of them refuses to spend, they are in the position of two partners in the original crop if one of them refuses to irrigate or spend on it. There are two opinions regarding this: one of them is that he is compelled to spend on it. This is the opinion of Abu Bakr, because neglecting the expense involves harm to both of them and a waste of wealth (30), and the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: "There should be no harming nor reciprocating harm" (31), and he forbade the wasting of wealth (32). The other opinion is that he is not compelled, because he is not compelled to spend on the property of himself, nor the property of another, when each of them is independent, so it is the same when they are together. The basis for these two opinions is when a shared wall falls into disrepair, and one of the partners calls upon the other to rebuild it, but he refuses. It is appropriate that the expense should be between them according to the value of each of their rights, just as if they were partners in the original crop.

Section: If he bequeaths to a man (33) a ring, and to another its gemstone, it is valid, and neither of them has the right to derive benefit from it except with the permission of the other. Whichever of them requests to remove the gemstone from the ring is granted his request, and the other is compelled to do so. If they agree to sell it, or settle on wearing it, it is permissible; because the right belongs to them and does not extend beyond them.