from those from whom he would flee only in the direst distress: his wife and children. The expression “his companion” is more fitting than “his wife.”

I said:

This concerns statements of fact. Its counterpart among commands is His saying:

“Then compensation by fasting, charity, or sacrifice.”

And His saying:

“Its expiation is to feed ten needy people with food of the average quality you feed your own families, or to clothe them.”

Obligations are of two kinds. Some follow a prescribed sequence, in which the greater is placed first, followed by the next greatest, as with the expiations for zihār (declaring one’s wife to be like one’s mother), killing, and oaths. Others allow a choice. Here, He begins with the least burdensome to make clear that it is sufficient and in no way deficient. Even when He mentions the greater afterward, this is to encourage it, not to make it obligatory. It is better for the heart to move from the lesser deed to the greater than to be commanded to perform the greater and then be told of the lesser, only for the heart to disdain it.

Thus, when He begins with the greater in the compensation for killing game, we have two transmitted positions concerning whether a prescribed sequence must be followed. If we defend the well-known position, we say that He placed the greater first because the lesser is within one’s capacity, as He says:

“Or an expiation by feeding needy people, or its equivalent in fasting.”

Likewise, when He begins with the most severe of the prescribed punishments for those who wage war, we do not regard these as either a matter of choice or a prescribed sequence; rather, they correspond to the crimes committed. Nothing in the wording of the verse implies a choice, as some people imagine, for He did not say: “The obligation—or the recompense—is this