His statement, “from a specified asset”: its opposite is an unspecified one, which cannot validly be endowed. For example, if he says, “I endow one of my two houses,” this is not valid, because it is unspecified and undetermined.

The apparent meaning of the author’s words is that there is no difference whether their values are equal or unequal, since he has not specified it. The correct view, however, is that if their values are equal, the endowment is established.

For example, a person has apartments that are identical in every respect, and he says, “I endow one of my apartments for So-and-so.” There is then no impediment. First, because it is a gratuitous contract, and concessions are made in gratuitous transactions that are not made in other matters.

Second, because their values are equal, so it makes no difference whether it is the one on the right or the one on the left. Indeed, one of the views concerning sale—which is an exchange contract founded upon close bargaining—is that when the values are equal, the sale of an unspecified item is permissible, as when one says, “I sell you one of these two cars.”

His statement, “from a specified asset,” apparently means that it is not valid to endow that which is not specified—that is, that whose particular identity has not been established.

For example, a person buys from someone a car described by such-and-such specifications, then wishes to endow it. Its endowment is not valid, because it is a debt owed in liability and is not a specified asset.

The apparent meaning of the author’s words is that it is not a condition for it to be known. Thus, if he endows one of his properties without identifying it, the endowment is valid, because it is a specified asset. According to the madhhab, however, it is not valid because it is unknown; and if it is unknown, it may be greater than the endower imagines. The stronger view is that this is valid, because he was not compelled to establish the endowment, nor is an endowment a contest in which one says: