, not that none of them are authoritative. Some implied meanings may constitute evidence because the intention behind them is clear. This implied meaning is of that kind, as shown by people’s understanding of it. Anyone who disputes that understanding is either unsound in reason or obstinately denying it.

Once it is established that this statement precludes transferring the entitlement to those of the deceased’s tier when he leaves children, either it passes neither to them nor to the children—which contradicts his statement, “To their children, then to their children’s children, in perpetuity for as long as they have descendants”—or it passes to the children, which is precisely what we seek to establish.

If it is said:

“It may be conceded that implied meaning constitutes evidence, but it conflicts with the explicit wording at the outset, or with the general wording. That evidence should not be set aside on account of the implied meaning.”

The reply is that there are several answers.

First:

The initial wording, on its own, establishes nothing whatsoever, because wording only constitutes evidence once it is complete and stands apart from what follows. When it is connected to what follows, it is part of the evidence, not evidence in itself; and part of the evidence is not the evidence itself. Anyone who thinks that, within a continuous statement, its unrestricted opening conflicts with its qualified ending does not understand what a conflict between two pieces of evidence is.

Second:

Even supposing that the initial wording were complete, it is not explicit, as explained earlier. Rather, it admits two meanings. As for its being general, that is conceded. However, we do not restrict its scope; rather, we preserve its