(The Third Type)

“Handing Over a Written Text and Correspondence”

In both cases, he gives the recipient a written text rather than addressing him orally. Handing it over, however, is direct, whereas correspondence involves an intermediary. Thus, handing over is preferable when the two methods are otherwise equivalent—for example, when he hands over specific hadiths known to him, or writes to the recipient conveying those same hadiths. Handing over is presentation for confirmation in summary form, for his statement concerning what he has with him … (1).

If, however, he writes to the recipient conveying specific hadiths, but hands him a book without specifying its contents, correspondence is preferable. In correspondence, it is sufficient to know that the handwriting is his. This was not disputed even by those who disputed the validity of a judge’s letter to another judge and of written testimony. In those cases, the jurists differed: Is testimony concerning the letter required? If so, must the testimony concern its actual contents, or is testimony concerning the letter itself sufficient? Those who required testimony made reliance rest upon the witnesses testifying concerning the judge who wrote it, so that someone other than the judge to whom it was addressed could act upon the letter.

Furthermore, “correspondence” involves the intention to convey the information contained in the letter. If that intention concerns its recipient, he may truthfully say, “He wrote to me,” or, “He showed me his letter.” If, however, the writer addressed someone else and this person read the letter, it is like his narrating to someone else while this person hears