the third. If the first lot comes out for the owner of the half, he takes the first three, and the second comes out for the fourth. If it comes out for the owner of the third, he takes it and the one following it, and the sixth is for the owner of the sixth. If the second comes out for the owner of the sixth, he takes it, and the other takes the fifth and sixth. If the first comes out for the owner of the third, he takes the first and the second, then he brings out the second for the third. If it comes out for the owner of the half, he takes the third, fourth, and fifth, and the other takes the sixth. If the second comes out for the owner of the sixth, he takes it, and the owner of the half takes what remains. It is said: Six slips are written, three in the name of the owner of the half, two in the name of the owner of the third, and one in the name of the owner of the sixth. This is of no benefit, for the intended purpose is the appearance of the name of the owner of the half, and if he writes three slips, the purpose is achieved, so it is sufficient. It is not valid to write slips with the names of the shares and bring them out for the names of the owners, because if he brings out one containing the second share for the owner of the sixth, then brings out another for the owner of the half or the third containing the first share, he would need to take his portion in a scattered way, and he would be harmed by that.

The fourth category: If the shares and the values differ, the partitioner balances the shares by value, making them six shares of equal value, then he brings out the slips containing the names for the shares, just as we mentioned in the third category exactly, with no difference between them, except that the balancing here is by values, and in the one before it, it was by area. As for the second type, which is the partition of mutual consent that involves compensation and it is not possible to balance the shares unless a substitute is placed with some of them, this does not involve coercion; because it is an exchange, and one cannot be coerced into an exchange. Likewise is everything whose partition is not obligatory, such as two houses where each one of them is made a share, and whatever would suffer damage by its partition, and the like of this, and we have already mentioned examples of it previously.

Once this is established, the partition of coercion becomes binding by the drawing of lots; because the lot of the judge's partitioner is equivalent to his judgment, so it becomes binding by being brought out, just like the binding nature of the judge's judgment. As for the partition of mutual consent, there are two views regarding it: One of them is that it is also binding, like the partition of coercion, because the partitioner is like a judge, and his lot is like his judgment. The second is that it is not binding; because it is a sale, and a sale is only binding by mutual consent, not by the drawing of lots, and the lot here is only to identify the seller from the buyer. As for if they agree that each of them takes one of the two shares without a lot, it is permissible; because the right belongs to them, and it does not go beyond them. Likewise, if one of them gives the other the choice and he chooses, it becomes binding here by mutual consent and their separation, just as a sale becomes binding.