and the deceased’s share may not pass to the members of his tier unless he dies leaving no child, grandchild, offspring, or posterity. Thus, if he has a descendant—even a remote one—that descendant’s existence prevents the share from passing to the members of his tier and requires it to pass instead to that descendant, by virtue of the founder’s words: “For his children, then his children’s children, then his offspring and posterity, perpetually, for as long as they continue to have descendants.”

Know that, beyond what we have already mentioned, the flaws in this objection are almost too numerous to enumerate. Among them is the following: If his intention were merely to exclude the possibility of a lapse in the endowment, he would have had to use general wording, saying, “Whoever among them dies, his share shall pass on”; or draw attention to the implication by saying, “Whoever among them dies leaving a child, his share shall pass to the members of his tier.” For if his share passes to the members of his tier despite his having a child, then it should all the more do so when he has none.

But suppose he expressly states that the share passes to the members of the tier when there is no child, thereby excluding the possibility of a lapse, and then expects us to understand that it also passes to them when there is a child, merely because he said, “For my children, then my children’s children.” Here, however, the possibility of a lapse remains, alongside another possibility peculiar to this case: that the share passes to the deceased’s child. Indeed, the possibility of its passing to the founder’s grandchild here is more evident than the possibility of a lapse. Moreover, a restrictive reading, given the qualification, is more evident than the inference of a lapse. Furthermore, the words “For my children’s children” indicate more clearly that the share passes to the members of the tier when there is no child than that it passes to them when there is a child. He would thus be asking us to understand his words backwards and to step beyond the bounds of reason and clear expression. For