An example of this is a man who borrows fifty thousand from someone and pledges his slave as security. The pledgor then emancipates the slave. The author says: His emancipation of the slave is unlawful, but the emancipation takes effect. (1)

As for his act of emancipation being unlawful, this is because it is a transaction by which the pledgee’s right is nullified, and is therefore unlawful. As for its taking effect, this is because emancipation is based on extension and predominance, and so takes effect despite being unlawful; moreover, the Lawgiver encourages emancipation, urges it, and commends it. But what becomes of the pledgee’s right?

The author says, “Its value is taken as security in its place.” The value is taken from the pledgor who emancipated it and made a pledge in its place. He did not say that its price is taken, because he did not sell it. Accordingly, the slave is appraised, and its value is made a pledge in its place. Thus, the pledgor’s emancipation of the pledged slave entails three rulings: it takes effect; it is unlawful; and its value is taken and made a pledge.

If the pledgor has nothing, what is to be done?

The pledgee’s right is lost, since the pledgor has nothing, while the original debt remains owed by the pledgor.

It is understood from the author’s words, “except for the pledgor’s emancipation,” that the pledgee’s emancipation is neither valid nor effective. The reason is that he does not own the slave; thus, the pledgee’s emancipation never takes effect.

However, if the pledgor sold this slave rather than emancipating him, this would be unlawful and invalid. It has already been mentioned why emancipation takes effect despite being unlawful: the reason given is the strong effect of emancipation’s extension. But this view is very weak.