the one not consummated with is irrevocably divorced, so the repetition of this statement was not an oath by her divorce. And she is not a wife, so the condition was not met. If he conditioned their divorce on swearing by the divorce of both of them, and then he renewed the marriage of the irrevocably divorced one, then said to her: "If you speak, you are divorced," it has been said: They are both divorced at that point, because he has thereby become one who has sworn by her divorce, and he had sworn by the divorce of the one consummated with by repeating his statement in the third instance, so they are both divorced at that point. It is stronger in my view that divorce does not occur by this one whose marriage he renewed, because when he repeated it the third time she was irrevocably divorced, so the attribute did not attach by referring to her, just as if he said to a stranger: "If I swear by your divorce, you are divorced," then married her, and swore by her divorce. However, the one consummated with is divorced at that point, because he has sworn by her divorce in the third instance, and sworn by the divorce of this one at that point, so he completed the condition for her divorce, and she is divorced alone.
Section: If he had two wives, Hafsah and 'Amrah, and he said: "If I swear by your divorce, then 'Amrah is divorced." Then he repeated it, neither of them is divorced; because this is an oath by the divorce of 'Amrah alone, so the oath by the divorce of both of them was not found. If he said after that: "If I swear by your divorce, then Hafsah is divorced," 'Amrah is divorced, because he swore by the divorce of both of them after he had linked her divorce to the oath by the divorce of both of them. Hafsah is not divorced because he did not swear by the divorce of both of them after he had linked her divorce to it. If he said after this: "If I swear by your divorce, 'Amrah is divorced," neither of them is divorced, because he did not swear by the divorce of both, but rather he only swore by the divorce of 'Amrah alone. If he said after this: "If I swear by your divorce, Hafsah is divorced," Hafsah is divorced. And it follows this analogy.
(39) In B, M: "his wife". (40) In A, B, M: "the marriage". (41) In the original: "an oath". (42) In the original, A: "the woman". (43) In the original: "was". (44) Omitted from: the original. A cross-reference. (45) In A: "by her divorce".
بها بائِنٌ، فلم تكُنْ إعادةُ هذا القولِ حَلِفًا بطَلاقِها. وهى غيرُ زوجةٍ (٣٩)، فلم يُوجَدِ الشَّرْطُ، فإن شَرطَ طلاقِهما الحَلِفُ بطلاقِهما جميعًا، فإن جَدَّدَ نِكاحَ (٤٠) البائنِ، ثم قال لها: إن تكَلَّمتِ فأنتِ طالقٌ. فقد قيلَ: يَطْلُقانِ حينئذٍ؛ لأنَّه صار بهذا حالِفًا (٤١) بطلاقِها، وقد حَلَفَ بطلاق المدخولِ بها بإعادةِ قولِه فى المَرّةِ الثَّالثةِ، فَطَلُقَتَا حنيئذٍ. ويَقْوَى عندى أنَّه لا يَقعُ الطَّلاقُ بهذه التى جَدَّدَ نكاحَها؛ لأنها حينَ إعادتِه المَرَّةَ (٤٢) الثالثةَ بائنٌ، فلم تَنْعَقِدِ الصِّفَةُ بالإِضافةِ إليها، كما لو قال لأجْنبِيَّةٍ: إن حَلَفتُ بطلاقِك فأنتِ طالقٌ. ثم تَزوَّجَها، وحَلَفَ بطلاقِها. ولكن تطْلُقُ المدخولُ بها حينئذٍ؛ لأنَّه قد حَلفَ بطلاقِها فى المَرَّةِ الثَّالثةِ، وحَلَفَ بطلاقِ هذه حينئذٍ، فكَمَّلَ شرطَ طلاقِها. فطَلُقَتْ وحدَها.
فصل: فإن كانت (٤٣) له امرأتانِ، حَفْصَةُ وعَمْرَةُ، فقال: إن حَلَفْتُ بطلاقِكما فعَمْرَةُ طالق. ثم أعادَه، لم تَطْلُقْ واحدة منهما؛ لأنَّ هذا حَلِفٌ بطلاقِ عَمْرةَ وحدَها، فلم يُوجَدِ الحَلِفُ بطلاقِهما. وإن قال بعدَ ذلك: إن حَلَفْتُ بطلاقِكما [فحَفْصَةُ طالقٌ. طَلُقَتْ عَمرةُ؛ لأنَّه حَلَفَ بِطلاقِهما بعدَ تعْليقه طلاقَها على الحَلِفِ بطلاقِهما] (٤٤)، ولم تَطْلُقْ حَفْصةُ لأنَّه ما حَلَفَ بطلاقِهما (٤٥) بعدَ تعْليقه طلاقَها عليه. فإن قال بعدَ هذا: إن حَلَفْتُ بطلاقِكما، فعَمرةُ طالق. لم تَطْلُقْ واحدةٌ منهما؛ لأنَّه لم يَحْلِفْ بطلاقِهما، إنما حَلَفَ بطلاقِ عَمْرَةَ وحدَها. فإن قال بعدَ هذا: إن حَلَفْتُ بطلاقِكما، فحفصةُ طالق. طَلُقَتْ حَفْصةُ. وعلى هذا القياسُ.
(٣٩) فى ب، م: "زوجته".(٤٠) فى أ، ب، م: "النكاح".(٤١) فى الأصل: "حلفا".(٤٢) فى الأصل، أ: "المرأة".(٤٣) فى الأصل: "كان".(٤٤) سقط من: الأصل. نقل نظر.(٤٥) فى أ: "بطلاقها".