other than him, and two others testify for another that this boy is the son of this deceased person, and we do not know any heir for him other than him, there is no contradiction between them, and the lineage of both boys from him is established, and the inheritance is divided between them; because it is permissible for each piece of evidence to know what the other did not know.

Section: If a man claims a slave in the possession of another by saying that he bought him from him, and the slave claims that his master emancipated him, and neither of them has evidence, and he (the master) denies both of them, he takes an oath to both of them, and the slave remains with him. If he admits (the claim of) one of them, that to which he admitted for him is established, and he takes an oath to the other. If one of them produces evidence for what he claimed, it is established. If each of them produces evidence for his claim, and they are both dated with two different dates, we give precedence to the first, and the other is void; because if emancipation preceded, the sale would not be valid, as the sale of a free man is not valid, and if the sale preceded, the emancipation would not be valid, because he emancipated someone else's slave. If it is said: It is possible that he returned to his ownership and then he emancipated him. We say: Ownership has already been established for the purchaser, so the emancipation of the seller does not invalidate it. If they are both dated with the same date, or are both absolute, or one of them is absolute, they contradict each other; because there is no preference for one over the other. If it (the slave) is in the possession of the purchaser, this depends on the disagreement regarding giving precedence to the evidence of the one in possession (dakhil) versus the one out of possession (kharij). If we give precedence to the evidence of the one in possession, he belongs to the purchaser; if we give precedence to the evidence of the one out of possession, the emancipation is given precedence, because he is out of possession. If it is in the possession of the seller, and we say that the two pieces of evidence cancel each other out due to contradiction, they become like two parties who have no evidence, [and the matter refers back to the master]. If he denies them, he takes an oath to both of them. If he admits to the emancipation, it is established, and the slave does not take an oath; because if he (the master) were to admit that he did not emancipate him, nothing would be incumbent upon him, so there is no benefit in making him take an oath. The seller takes an oath to the purchaser. If he admits to the purchaser, ownership is established for him, and he does not take an oath to the slave; because if he were to admit to him that he