Suppose the buyer says, “I will take the car to Mecca and Medina,” and the other co-owner says, “If you travel in it, then half the rental charge is due.” Does the buyer then have the option to rescind because the transaction has been split? We say: Yes, he has that option, because splitting the transaction harms him.

His statement, “or something whose price can be apportioned according to its parts,” means that it is not undivided jointly owned, but rather that its price can be apportioned by its parts. An example is two measures of wheat: one belongs to me and the other to someone else. I mix them together and then sell them. Is the sale valid with respect to both measures, or only with respect to the measure that belongs to me? He said:

“It is valid regarding his own share in its proportionate amount,” meaning, only with respect to the measure that belongs to me; it is not valid with respect to the other measure. The difference between this case and the first is that, in the first, the joint ownership is undivided, whereas in the second, the ownership is by distinct parts. For in the grain here, one grain belongs to me and another grain belongs to someone else; whereas in undivided joint ownership, every particle of the owned property is jointly owned.

Thus, if he sells something whose price can be apportioned according to its parts, some of which belongs to him and some to another, the sale is valid regarding what belongs to him, but it is not valid regarding what belongs to the other, because he does not own it and has not been authorized to sell it. This is the second of the cases of splitting the transaction.

His statement, “And if he sells his own slave and another person’s slave without that person’s permission,” means that he sells two distinct existing items, each independent of the other: his own slave and another person’s slave. He takes the other person’s slave