There are two views similar to these. They said: The root of the two views is: if the heirs dispose of the estate through a sale or otherwise, and there is a debt against the deceased, and the debt is paid off, does it take effect? There are two views.

Section: If a sick person emancipates three slaves, and he has no wealth other than them, [so the heirs drew lots], and they emancipated one and kept two in servitude, then a debt appeared against him that consumes half of them, there are two views regarding this. One of them is that the drawing of lots is void; because the debt is a partner in the drawing of lots, so if the division took place while it was absent, it is void, just as if two partners divided property without their third partner. The second is that the drawing of lots is valid; because it is not possible to implement the division and isolate the share of the debt from each of the two shares, because the drawing of lots was entered into for the sake of emancipation, not the debt. So the heirs are told: Pay two-thirds of the debt. It is equivalent to the value of half of the two slaves who remained, either from the slaves or from others, and the half of the slave who was emancipated must be returned. If he emancipated two slaves, we draw lots between them; if the lot falls on one of them, and it was equivalent to one-sixth of the estate, he is emancipated, and the other is sold for the debt. If it is more, he is emancipated to the extent of the one-sixth, and if it is less, he is emancipated, and the remainder of the one-sixth is emancipated from the other.

1962 - Issue: He said: "And if he emancipated them, and they are three, so we emancipated one of them due to the inability of his one-third to cover more than that, then wealth appeared for him such that they fit within his one-third, the one who was kept in servitude is emancipated."

Its summary is that when he emancipates three in his illness, and no wealth is known for him other than them, or he designates them for tadbir, or bequeaths their emancipation, only one-third of them is emancipated, and two-thirds remain in servitude if the heirs do not permit their emancipation. When we have done that, then wealth appeared for him equivalent to double them, it becomes clear that they were emancipated from the time he emancipated them, or from the time of his death if he had designated them for tadbir; because tadbir and the sick person's disposition of one-third of his wealth is permissible and effective, and it has become evident that they constitute one-third of his wealth. Our ignorance of that does not prevent it from being present, so it does not prevent the emancipation from having occurred. Consequently,