the measure is known, the weight used for weighing is known, and the cubit used for measuring length is known.

But is a salam contract valid for items sold by count? The answer requires detail: if they can be precisely specified, it is valid; otherwise, it is not. Oranges cannot be precisely specified, because some are small and others large. Watermelons likewise cannot be precisely specified, and so on.

His statement, “As for countable items that vary, such as fruits,” means that a salam contract is not valid for them, because they vary greatly. Some oranges are like citrons, while others are like mandarins, and thus their variation is considerable. So, if you say, “I have entered into a salam contract with you, paying one hundred riyals for one thousand oranges,” this is not valid, for how could they be precisely specified? Therefore, it is invalid.

His statement, “vegetables,” is the plural of baql (a plant without a stalk), such as onions, leeks, and the like. A salam contract for these too is not valid, because they cannot be precisely specified. Thus, if you say, “I have entered into a salam contract with you, paying one hundred riyals for one hundred bundles of onions,” this is not valid, because they cannot be precisely specified. But if they are specified by weight, it is valid, because they do not vary.

His statement, “skins”: these too cannot be precisely specified. If you say, “I have entered into a salam contract with you, paying one thousand riyals for one hundred sheepskins,” this is not valid, because they vary greatly in size, strength, and quality of flaying. Some people, when skinning, leave the hide looking like a sieve because they do not know how to skin properly; while others skin well, and some leave flesh attached to the hide. In short, a salam contract for skins is not valid. Some jurists, however, held that it is valid for