has confined the ruling to those specifically designated at the end of his statement. Both those who affirm implication and those who deny it call this “connected specification.” They say: when the general wording is joined to a particular description, the ruling becomes attached exclusively to that description, and those who do not meet it are excluded from the ruling.

For those who deny implication, this is because such people would have no entitlement unless they were included in the wording. When the general wording was joined to the particular description, it excluded them from its scope. They therefore were not included and have no entitlement. Thus, they deny their entitlement because there is no basis for it.

Those who affirm implication exclude them on this ground and on another: specifically mentioning one of the two categories indicates an intention to confine the ruling to it, and intending to confine the ruling to them necessarily entails denying it to others. Thus, they deny their entitlement both because its basis is absent and because an impediment to it exists.

The same applies if he qualifies unrestricted wording, as when he says: “I establish an endowment for my children, on condition that they receive distributions if they are poor”; or “on condition that they are entitled if they are poor”; or “I establish an endowment for my children, on condition that distributions from the endowment are made to those of them who are living if they are poor”; or “I establish an endowment on condition that whoever is poor shall be among its beneficiaries.”

This is equivalent to saying: “I establish an endowment for my children—for the poor among them”; or “on condition that they are poor”; or “if he is poor.”

Likewise, if he says: “I establish an endowment for my daughters, on condition that any daughter who is unmarried shall receive a distribution, and any daughter who marries and is then divorced by her husband shall receive a distribution,” this is equivalent to saying: “I establish an endowment for