as the amount that was emancipated of him. If the slave’s value was two hundred, two-fifths of him would be emancipated, because a 'thing' is emancipated from him, and he is liable for half a 'thing' for the master, so there becomes for the master half a 'thing', and the remainder of the slave equals two 'things'; thus, the remainder of the slave equals a 'thing' and a half, which is three-fifths of him, and the 'thing' which was emancipated is two-fifths of him. If his value is fifty or less, the whole of him is emancipated, because he is obligated for one hundred, which is twice his value or more. If his value is sixty, we say: a 'thing' is emancipated of him, and he is liable for a 'thing' and two-thirds of a 'thing' for the master, along with the remainder of the slave, which equals two 'things'; thus, the remainder of the slave is one-third of a 'thing', and three-fourths of him is emancipated. This is the analogy, except that what exceeds a third in emancipation must be contingent upon the payment of the corresponding portion of the value, just as when he designates a slave as a Mudabbar [a slave promised freedom upon the master's death] while he has a debt owed by a debtor; for whenever he collects any part of the value, a portion of the [emancipation] reserved is freed in accordance with its third.

Section: If he emancipated two slaves simultaneously, one valued at one hundred and the other at one hundred and fifty, and the lower [valued slave] committed a crime against the higher one that diminished him by a third of his value, and its damages are likewise, during the lifetime of their master, and then he died, we draw lots between the two slaves. If it falls upon the perpetrator, four-fifths of him are emancipated, and he is liable for four-fifths of the damages of his crime, and there remain for the heirs of his master one-fifth of him, the damages of his crime, and the other slave, which is one hundred and sixty, and this is twice the amount of what was emancipated of him. The calculation for this is to say: a slave, a 'thing' of him was emancipated, and he is liable for half a 'thing'—because his crime is equal to half his value—there remains for the master half a 'thing', and the remainder of the two slaves equals two 'things'; so you know that the remainder of the two slaves is a 'thing' and a half. If you add to that the 'thing' that was emancipated, they both together equal two and a half 'things', so the complete 'thing' is two-fifths of them, and this is four-fifths of one of them. If the lot of freedom falls upon the victim, one-third of him is emancipated, and he has one-third of the damages of his crime, which attaches to the neck of the perpetrator, and that is one-ninth of the diya, because a crime against one whose third is free is guaranteed according to the amount of freedom and servitude within him.