And he took it by it, it is valid; because he has already witnessed its weighing and knew it, so there is no meaning in considering its weighing a second time. And according to another narration, it is not sufficient. This is the school of al-Shafi'i; because the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) prohibited the sale of food until the two measures (sa's) have run through it. This is included in that prohibition. Also, because he took possession of it without measuring, it resembles the case where he took possession of it in bulk. If Zayd said to 'Amr: "Attend with us until I measure it for myself, then you measure it for yourself." And they did so, it is valid without question. If Zayd measured it for himself, and then 'Amr took it by that measure which he witnessed, it is subject to the two narrations. If Zayd left it in the measure and handed it to 'Amr so that he might empty it for himself, it is valid, and that is considered a valid taking of possession; because the continuation of the measuring is equivalent to its commencement, and there is no meaning in starting the measurement here, as no additional knowledge is obtained thereby. The followers of al-Shafi'i said: It is not valid; due to the prohibition of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) against selling food until the two measures have run through it. It is possible to argue in favor of his premise, and the buyer's taking possession of it while in the measure is a running of the two measures over it. If Zayd gave 'Amr dirhams and said: "Buy for yourself with them the like of the food you have against me." And he did so, it is not valid; because Zayd's dirhams cannot have their equivalent for 'Amr. If he bought the food with the specific dirhams, or as a liability upon himself, it is like the disposal of an unauthorized agent (fuduli) as has been clarified. If he said: "Buy for me with them food, then take possession of it for yourself," and he did so, the purchase is valid, but taking possession for himself is not valid, according to what has preceded in such a scenario. If he said: "Take possession of it for yourself," and he did so, it is permitted. Ahmad has stated explicitly in a similar case, and such is the case for all the issues that have preceded, if the food came into the hand of 'Amr for Zayd, and he gave him permission to take possession of it from himself. The followers of al-Shafi'i said: It is not valid; because it is not permissible for him to be the one taking possession for himself from himself. Our view is that it is permissible for him to buy for himself from the property of his child, and to take possession for himself from himself.