and then remains silent for a period in which he could have spoken, then says, “deferred”; or he says, “He was owed one hundred by me,” then remains silent, and then says, “in defective coins.” In the first case, he is liable for one hundred payable immediately, and in the second, for one hundred sound coins. If he says, “He was owed one hundred by me,” then remains silent, and then says, “deferred, in defective coins,” he is liable for one hundred sound coins payable immediately.

How can we hold him liable for one hundred sound coins payable immediately when he qualified his statement with the opposite of that? The matter has not been established except through his acknowledgment, so why should we not say that he is liable only for what he acknowledged?

The answer is that, for a qualification to restrict the thing qualified, it must be connected to it, whereas here it was not connected.

Likewise, if he says, “He was owed one hundred by me,” and the person in whose favor the acknowledgment is made is a jurist who knows that it is one hundred defective coins payable at a later date, but after he says, “He was owed one hundred by me,” he distracts him with unrelated speech and then says, “in defective coins” or “deferred”—do we then say that the man employed a ruse against him, causing him to separate the thing qualified from its qualification? We say: if we know that the man deliberately employed such a ruse and distracted him with unrelated speech for this purpose, then this qualification is valid and restricts the thing qualified.

If we suppose that the man has a speech impediment—whether he stammers, repeats the letter fa, or the like—and he falls silent while we can see that he wishes to speak but is unable to do so, then the qualification is valid; this silence does not affect it. Hence, the author said, “during which he could have spoken,” making it clear that if he was unable to speak, the qualification is accepted.

If he says, “one hundred deferred” or “one hundred defective,” does this negate the basis of what was acknowledged, or merely one of its attributes?

The answer is: one of its attributes. Negating an attribute is not like nullifying the basis itself. Thus, in the first issue at the beginning of the chapter, we said that his statement, “No—