he shares with them, and if he appears after that, he shares with them, like the creditor of a deceased person who appears after his wealth has been divided. The judge's division of his wealth is not a definitive judgment; rather, it is a division in which an error has become apparent, so it is similar to if he had divided the property of a deceased person among his creditors and then another creditor appeared; or divided land among partners and then another partner appeared; or divided an inheritance among heirs and then another heir appeared; or divided a bequest and then another beneficiary appeared.

Section: If an insolvent person has a rented house, and it collapses after the insolvent person has received the rent, the lease is dissolved for the remainder of the period, and the rent is reduced by that amount. Then, if he finds the actual property, he takes it to that extent, and if he does not find it, he enters with the creditors for that amount. If this occurs after the division of his wealth, he recovers his portion from the creditors, because the cause for its obligation existed before the interdiction; for this reason, he participates with them if it became mandatory before the division. If he sold an item and received its price, then became insolvent, and the buyer found a defect in it and returned it on that basis, or returned it due to an option (khiyar), or a dispute regarding the price or similar, and he [the insolvent person] found the actual property, he takes it back, because when the sale was dissolved, the insolvent person's ownership of the price ceased, just as the buyer's ownership of the sold item ceased. If it was after he had disposed of it, the buyer participates with the creditors.

805 - Issue: He said: "The insolvent person and those whose support is incumbent upon him shall be provided for, according to what is customary, from his wealth, until the division of it among his creditors is completed."

The totality of this is that when an insolvent person is interdicted, and he has earnings sufficient for his maintenance and the maintenance of those whose maintenance is incumbent upon him, his maintenance is from his earnings; there is no need to disburse his wealth while he is self-sufficient through his earnings, so it is not permitted to take his wealth, similar to [the rule regarding] excess beyond maintenance. If his earnings are less than his maintenance, we supplement it from his wealth. If he does not have any earnings, he is provided for from his wealth during the period of interdiction, even if it is prolonged.