the one-third. As for if the one-third bears it, and he purchases him and emancipates him, then a debt that encompasses the estate appears against the deceased, the bequest is void, and the slave is returned to servitude if he purchased him with the specific property; because we have determined that the purchase is void due to it being purchased with wealth entitled to the creditors without their permission. And if the purchase was made on credit, the purchase is valid, the emancipation is executed, and the purchaser is liable for its price, and he has no recourse against anyone, for the seller did not deceive him; rather, the testator deceived him, and he has no estate from which he could recover. This is the school of al-Shafi'i. It is possible that he may share the estate with the creditors and claim along with them in proportion to his debt, because the debt became binding upon him due to the deception of the testator, so he has recourse against him for it, and since he is deceased, it becomes binding upon his estate, just like the compensation (arsh) for his injury.

Section: If he bequeaths the purchase of a slave and leaves it general, or bequeaths the sale of his slave and leaves it general, the bequest is void; because a bequest must have a beneficiary, and there is no beneficiary here. If he bequeaths his sale on the condition of emancipation, the bequest is valid, and he is sold as such; because there is, in the sale here, a benefit to the slave through emancipation. If no one is found to purchase him as such, the bequest becomes void due to the impossibility of its execution, just as if he had bequeathed the purchase of a slave to be emancipated, and his master did not sell him. If he bequeaths his sale to a specific man for a known price, he is sold for it; because he generally intended to favor him by that. If he did not specify a price, he is sold for his value, and the bequest is valid; because he intended to deliver the specific slave to a specific man. It is possible that the purpose relates to favoring the slave by delivering him to one who is known for good ownership and the emancipation of slaves. It is also possible that he intended to favor the purchaser for a reason that he gains from the slave. If the sale to that man is impossible, or he refuses to purchase him for the price—or for his value if he did not specify the price—the bequest becomes void, for the reason we have mentioned.

978 - Issue: He said: "If he bequeaths to a man a slave, while he owns nothing else and his value is one hundred, and to another [he bequeaths] one-third of his property, while his property other than the slave is two hundred dirhams, and the heirs approve that, the one to whom he bequeathed the one-third receives one-third of the two hundred and one-fourth of the slave, and the one to whom he bequeathed the slave receives three-fourths of him. And if...