if he says, “On grazing livestock,” one might suppose that he singled them out for mention because they were the most prevalent form of wealth, or because the need to clarify their ruling was more pressing. This is clear. The same applies here: if his intention were that the deceased’s share should pass to those of his tier, whether or not he left children, then saying, “Whoever among them dies, his share shall belong to those of his tier,” would have expressed the intended ruling comprehensively and concisely.

If, instead, he says, “Whoever among them dies leaving no child, offspring, or descendants, whatever he had been receiving from this shall belong to those of his rank and tier,” he would have lengthened the wording while diminishing the meaning conveyed. This is not the case if the wording is understood as restricting the ruling to the stated case: the statement then remains sound and meaningful. The author’s words must be given effect wherever possible; they must never be disregarded when they can be given effect.

Third:

Those who reject implied meaning do so because singling something out for mention may have a reason other than restricting the ruling to it. The speaker may be unaware of the unmentioned case, or may not intend to explain its ruling. The unmentioned case may be more deserving of the ruling than the stated case, or may appear at first sight to be equivalent to it. The speaker may have been asked about the explicitly stated case; circumstances may have arisen that required its ruling to be explained; there may be a particular need to explain it; or the explicitly stated case may represent the predominant instances of that type.

Thus, when it is known, or considered most likely, that none of these reasons or others like them accounts for singling it out for mention, it is understood that he mentioned it specifically only because the ruling applies exclusively to it.