His wife said: "O Messenger of Allah, he is a very old man, he has no strength for fasting." He said: "Then let him feed sixty poor people." (2) And when he commanded Salama ibn Sakhr to fast, he said: "Did I befall what I befell except because of fasting?" He said: "Then feed." (3) He thus diverted him to feeding when he informed him that he had such extreme sexual desire (shabaq) and lust that prevented him from fasting. We have used analogy (qiyas) based on these two instances for what resembles them in their meaning. It is permissible to transfer to feeding if one is unable to fast due to illness, even if the illness is expected to pass, because he is included under the words of Him, Exalted and Almighty: {Then whoever is unable, then feeding sixty poor people}. Also, because he does not know that it (the illness) has an end, so it resembles extreme sexual desire (shabaq). It is not permissible to transfer (to feeding) due to travel, because travel does not make him unable to fast, it has an end to which it concludes, and it is among his elective actions. The obligatory act regarding feeding is the feeding of sixty poor people; less than that does not suffice him. This is the view of al-Shafi'i. Abu Hanifa said: If he feeds one poor person over sixty days, it suffices him. Al-Qadi Abu al-Husayn narrated this as a narration from Ahmad, because this poor person did not fully receive his day's sustenance from this expiation, so it is permissible to be given from it, like the first day. Our evidence is the words of Allah the Exalted: {Then feeding sixty poor people}. This person did not feed but one, so he did not fulfill the command, and because he did not feed sixty poor people, it does not suffice him, just as if he had handed it over to him all in one day. Moreover, if it were permissible to hand it over to him over several days, it would be permissible in one day, like Zakat and Sadaqat al-Fitr. This is reinforced by the fact that Allah commanded a number of poor people, [not a number of days, and the proponent of this (view) considers the number of days instead of the number of poor people] (5). The meaning regarding the first day is that he did not fully receive his due from this expiation, and on the second day, he has already fully received his due from it and taken his day's sustenance from it, so it is not permissible to give it to him on the second day, just as if a person bequeathed something to sixty poor people.