to the heirs. If the slave had been gifted to a person, that person would have the same claim to the slave and his earnings as the slave has regarding his own earnings and himself in all these issues.

Section: If he emancipated two slaves of equal value with a single word, and he has no wealth other than them, then one of them dies, lots are drawn between the living and the deceased. If the lot falls upon the deceased, the living one remains in bondage, and it is established that half of the deceased was free, because the heirs are entitled to the equivalent of two portions of his half. If the lot falls upon the living, one-third of him is emancipated, and the deceased is not counted against the heirs because he did not reach them.

Section: A man emancipated a slave, and he had no wealth other than him, and his value was ten. The slave died before his master, leaving behind twenty; this amount belongs to his master by virtue of the wala' (right of patronage), and it is established that he died free. The same applies if he left behind forty and a daughter. If he left behind ten, a portion of him is emancipated, he has a portion of his earnings, and his master has two portions; ten has materialized in the hand of his master, which equals two portions, thus it is established that half of him was free and the remainder is in bondage, and the master is entitled to the ten: half by virtue of bondage and half by virtue of the wala'. If the slave left behind a son, he has a portion from his person and a portion from his earnings which goes to his father by inheritance, and his master has two portions; the ten is divided into three, with the son getting one-third and the master two-thirds, and it is established that one-third of the slave was emancipated. If he left behind a daughter, she has half a portion and the master has two portions, so the ten is divided into five parts; the daughter gets one-fifth and the master gets four-fifths, equal to two portions, so it is established that two-fifths of the slave died free. If the slave left behind twenty and a son, he has two portions of his earnings which belong to his son, and his master has two portions, so the twenty is divided between the master and his son in two halves, and it is established that half of him was emancipated. If the son died before the death of the master, and he was the son of his freedman, the master inherits from him because we established that his father died free, due to the master owning twenty, which is twice his value, so he was emancipated and drew the wala' of his son to his master, who then inherited from him. If he was not the son of his freedman, his wala' would not be drawn, and the master of his father would not inherit from him. The same ruling applies if this son left behind twenty and his father left nothing, or if the master owned twenty from any source.