“And the reverse applies if he arrives after one month and an hour. If he says, ‘You are divorced before my death,’ she is divorced immediately; whereas the reverse is the case if he says, ‘with my death’ or ‘after it.’”

His statement, “And the reverse applies if he arrives after one month and an hour”: For example, on Saturday he says, “You are divorced three times one month before Zayd’s arrival,” and on Sunday he enters into a khul‘ divorce with her. Then Zayd arrives one month and an hour after his statement, “You are divorced.” The divorce is valid, whereas the khul‘ is not valid, because it becomes clear that the khul‘ occurred with a woman who had already been irrevocably divorced. This is the reason he specified the words, “You are divorced three times”: so that the khul‘ would occur with a woman irrevocably divorced, and would therefore be invalid.

His statement, “If he says, ‘You are divorced before my death,’ she is divorced immediately”: If he says to his wife, “You are divorced before my death,” she is divorced, because every moment after these words is before his death; thus, his divorce takes effect immediately.

His statement, “Whereas the reverse is the case if he says, ‘with my death’ or ‘after it’”: That is, she is not divorced if he says, “You are divorced after my death,” because she becomes irrevocably separated from him upon his death. Likewise, if he says, “with my death,” the divorce does not take effect, because separation through death is stronger than separation through divorce. The ruling is therefore governed by the stronger of the two, namely death. Accordingly, the divorce does not take effect. If he says, “You are divorced shortly before my death,” she is divorced a little before his death. And if he says, “You are divorced on the day of my death,” she is divorced at the beginning of the day on which he dies.