His statement, “nor give it away as a gift”: a gift is the voluntary transfer of property without compensation during one’s lifetime. Such a condition is invalid.

For example, if he says, “I sell you this item on condition that you do not give it to anyone as a gift, or donate it in charity to anyone,” the condition is invalid, because it involves no interest for the seller; rather, it merely restricts the buyer. It is therefore invalid because it conflicts with the implication of the contract.

If it is asked: What is the difference between a gift and a sale? If he stipulates that the buyer must not sell it, the condition is valid; but if he stipulates that he must not give it away as a gift, it is invalid.

We say: There is no difference. Therefore, the correct view is that if he stipulates that the buyer must not give it away as a gift, then the matter requires further detail: if he has a legitimate intended purpose, there is nothing wrong with it; but if he has no intended purpose, then this condition is invalid, because it merely restricts the buyer.

If someone says: In every case, it restricts the buyer, because if he does not give it away as a gift and adheres to the condition, he can still remove it from his ownership by selling it, for example.

We say: The same applies in the case of sale. So long as we know that, by stipulating that he must not give it away as a gift, the seller intended that he not remove it from his ownership, then it makes no difference whether he phrases it in terms of a gift, a sale, or otherwise, for matters are judged by their intended purposes.

His statement, “nor emancipate him”: the condition is invalid, while the contract remains valid, because it conflicts with the implication of the contract. The implication of the contract is that the buyer has full authority to dispose of the property.

If someone says: Can the seller have an intended purpose in stipulating that the slave not be emancipated?

We say: He may have such a purpose—for example, if this slave does not