the benefit has entered it, for the transferee has benefited from the option of satisfying it from them, or from whichever of them he wishes; thus, it resembles the case where he transfers him onto two men, each of whom owes him a thousand, so that he may satisfy it from whichever of them he wishes. The first view is more correct. The difference between this issue and the case where he transfers him with two thousand is that there is no variation between them in the amount here, while there is a variation in it there; and because the transfer here is for a specific thousand, whereas the transfer there is for one of them without specification; and that if one of them pays him the thousand, he has paid the entire debt, whereas there, if one of them pays, what is upon the other remains. Even if neither of the two men were a guarantor for the other, and he transferred him onto both of them, the transfer is valid without any doubt; for when he has the right to satisfy the thousand from one, he has the right to satisfy it from two, just like two agents.