children before his siblings are born, so that his children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren die before his siblings have all died out. Perhaps only a few of his descendants and posterity remain, and they too die out. These differences concern actual circumstances, not what the wording signifies.

Fourth: His statement:

“Thus, the only provision it shares with the first clause is its designation as an endowment.”

The answer is:

There is no difference between them at all. The first clause encompasses its individual members just as the second encompasses its own, although the second generally includes more individuals. This has no bearing on the matter.

His statement, “The manner is different,” is disputed. An endowment for one’s children operates in the same manner as an endowment for one’s descendants and posterity: the members of each group share in it.

Fifth:

Even if we concede that there is a difference between them beyond what the wording signifies, this does not undermine their sharing in the provision conveyed by the conjunction. Were this difference in manner valid, it would be comparable to His saying:

“Every soul shall taste death.”

The experience of tasting death varies greatly, but the wording does not indicate these differences. They therefore do not preclude the shared applicability conveyed by the general wording.

Sixth:

The difference in manner is indicated by the conjunction, but this does not make the latter clause independent or mean that what follows applies exclusively to it. This is like saying: “I have established an endowment for my male and female children, my sons’ children, and my great-grandchildren, on condition that whoever among them dies