As for the case of vinegar and wine, it is known that wine has no legally recognized value. What, then, should be done? They said: the wine is assessed as vinegar—that is, as a drink that has not fermented. Thus, if it would be worth ten as vinegar, while the vinegar sold alongside it is worth five, only two-thirds of the price is deducted.

His statement, “The purchaser has the option if he is unaware of the circumstances,” means that, in cases where the transaction is divided, the purchaser has the option of cancelling the sale if he was unaware. If he knew, however, he has no such option.

For example, a man sells his own slave and someone else’s slave to a buyer, while the buyer knows that the latter slave does not belong to the seller. Since the sale of the slave who does not belong to him is invalid, does the purchaser have the option?

The answer is no, because he entered into the transaction knowingly; therefore, he has no option. Thus, the purchaser has the option if he is unaware of the circumstances; otherwise, he has no option, because he entered into it knowingly.

In summary, cases in which a transaction is divided are of three types:

The first: when one sells something known together with something unknown, the nature of which is not impossible to ascertain.

The second: when one sells jointly owned property shared between himself and another.

The third: when one sells two things, one of which may validly be sold and the other may not.

According to the madhhab, in all these cases the sale is valid with respect to that which may validly be sold and invalid with respect to that which may not; and the purchaser has the option.

The second view on the matter is that the sale is invalid in its entirety, because it is a single transaction and cannot be divided. However, the correct view is that of the madhhab.