among them is poor shall receive a distribution, and whoever among them is wealthy shall receive none.” Distributions would then be made to the first and second generations, whether wealthy or poor, or the distinction would apply exclusively to the third generation.
Likewise, if he said:
“Provided that whoever among them marries shall receive a distribution, and whoever does not marry shall receive none.”
Likewise, if he said:
“And whoever stipulates that the endowment be disbursed to the poor among them, but not the wealthy,” or, “on condition that it be disbursed to their poor, but not their wealthy.”
There are countless similar cases. Anyone who consistently applied the reasoning of this position to them would arrive at a monstrous absurdity. If, however, he said, “Rather, the condition applies to all generations, as everyone understands,” then it is self-evident that our case is one of this kind. There is no difference between it and these cases that could escape a discerning person.
The second ground:
People understand this wording only as imposing the condition on all generations. The evidence is that endowments carrying such stipulations are too numerous to count, yet people have understood them only in this way. Indeed, restricting the condition to the last generation may never have occurred to any endowment founder, scribe, witness, listener, judge or beneficiary.
Since this is how the wording is understood in customary usage, people’s statements must be interpreted according to their customary manner of speaking, whether that usage agrees with the established linguistic meaning or differs from it. Thus, if the linguistic meaning entails