other than that. Another view is that it is not void, because it is a slight interval, similar to if he had performed wudu. If he combines during the time of the second, separating is permissible, because once he prays the first, the second is in its time, and its performance does not fall out of being 'performed within time' (mu'addatan) by delaying it. There is another perspective that sequence is a condition, because the reality of combining is joining one thing to another, which cannot be achieved with separation. The first [view] is more correct, because once the first is performed correctly, it is not invalidated by anything that occurs after it, and the second does not occur except in its time.

Section: Whenever he combines in the time of the first, the existence of the excuse that permits it is considered at the time of commencing the first, finishing it, and commencing the second. So, whenever the excuse ceases during one of these three, combining is not permitted. If the rain ceases during the first [prayer] then returns before finishing it, or is interrupted after the opening takbir of the second, combining is permitted, and its interruption has no effect, because the excuse existed at the time of the intention—which is at the opening takbir of the first—and at the time of combining—which is the end of the first and the beginning of the second—so its absence at other times does not matter. As for the traveler, if he intends to reside during the first prayer, the combining and shortening are interrupted, and he is obliged to complete [the prayer]. If he returns and intends to travel, he is not permitted the concessions until he departs from the city he is in. If he intends to reside after the opening takbir of the second, or if his ship enters his city during it, it is possible that he must complete it, and it would be valid by analogy to the interruption of rain. Some of the Shafi'i scholars said: This is what is necessitated by the Shafi'i madhhab. It is also possible that it reverts to being a supererogatory prayer (nafl) and the combining is void, because it is one of the travel concessions and thus becomes void by that [intention to reside], like shortening and wiping [over the socks], and because its condition ceased during it, so it is like its other conditions. It differs from the interruption of rain in two respects: first, that its interruption is not certain, because of the possibility of it returning during the prayer; and second, that another permissible excuse may follow it, which is mud, unlike our issue. The same ruling applies to the patient who recovers and whose excuse ceases during the second prayer. However, if he...