There was a wealthy elder among the Children of Israel. His nephew's sons killed his son in order to inherit him. They threw him at the city gate and then came to demand his blood money. Allah commanded them to slaughter a cow and strike him with part of it so that he may come back to life and inform them of his killer. They said, "Do you take us for a joke? Do you make us a place of jest, or people of jest, or jesting with us, due to excessive mockery from the ignorant?" For jesting in such a matter is from the realm of ignorance and foolishness. It was read as "huzū" with two dhammas. "Huz'ā" was read with a sukoon on the zā, similar to "kafū'ā" and "kafū'ā." Hafs read "huzū" with two dhammas and the waw, and likewise "kafū." The terms al-‘iyādh and al-layādh are from one valley.

In the reading of Abdullah: "Ask your Lord what it is?" This is a question about its state and description. They were astonished by a dead cow being struck with part of it and a dead man coming back to life, so they asked about the description of that cow which responds to the matter and is different from other cows. The term "fārid" refers to the aged one, and it has been designated as such, so it is fārid. Khafāf ibn Nadbā said: "By my life, I have given your guest a fārid... which is driven to him and cannot stand on its legs." [Khafāf ibn Nadbā is mocking Abbas ibn Mardās for his stinginess. The fārid is the aged she-camel that is driven to him, meaning it cannot be ridden but needs someone to strike it and drive it from behind. "Cannot stand on its legs" means it has no strong legs to rely on for standing.]

It is as if it was named fārid because it has reached its age, meaning it has been cut off and has reached its end. The bākar is the young one.

And the ‘awān is the middle one. He said:

"Nawa'im between bākār and ‘awān" [The women I used to know long ago... and they, when residing, are not black.

Horses of the high places... Nawa'im between young ones and ‘awān.

For al-Tirmāh. The dhā'ā'in are women in litters. The ḍa'ā'in - with a ḍād - are the mounts. The ḍaghā'in - with a ghayn - is the plural of ḍaghīnah, which means malice, inclination, and deviation. To ḍaghantuh means to take it in your embrace. A horse that is ḍāghin does not give what it has in running. A she-camel with ḍagh is one that longs for its homeland. A woman with ḍagh loves someone other than her husband. The jūn - with a dhamma - is the plural of jūnah, meaning black.

And the ḥiṣān - with a fatha - is the chaste one. The naqāb is the plural of naqāb, like kutub and kitāb. The ‘awān originally is with a dhamma, the plural of ‘awān, which is the middle one - with two fatha - meaning the middle among women and animals, so it is made sakin for ease. He says: Those women are dhā'ā'in, meaning travelers not of their color in travel, and I used to know them in ancient times when residing not black and they are chaste of faces, and when they preserve, they all preserve as a habit. The ‘a'lā is a description of the naqāb or the places, and this can only be in women as you see. Some have narrated "ḍaghā'in" instead of "dhā'ā'in" and perhaps it is a distortion. They are soft, circling between young ones and middle ones.]

And it has been said [the phrase "and it has been said" in the dictionaries: and you say from it that a woman is ‘awwan, and she has aided. (A)] If you say: (between) implies two things or more. [Māhūn said: "If you say between implies two things..." Ahmad said: And a similar thing has occurred at the saying: (So if you do not do it, you will never do it) thus renewing a covenant.] From where is it permissible for it to enter upon (that)? I say because it is in the meaning of two things where it has been referred to what has been mentioned of the fārid and the bākar. If you say:

How is it permissible for it to refer to two feminine nouns, while it is for referring to a masculine singular? I say: That is permissible by interpreting what has been mentioned and what has preceded, for brevity in speech, just as they made "fa‘al" a substitute for many actions mentioned before it: you say to a man: Yes, what you did, and many actions and a long story have been mentioned to you, just as you say to him: How good that is. And the pronoun may run in the manner of a demonstrative pronoun in this. Abu Ubaidah said: I said to Ru'bah regarding his saying:

In it are lines of black and white, as if it is in the skin the brightness of the [UNTRANSLATED-LATIN: bahaq]. This is from Ru'ba ibn al-Ajajj describing a wild cow, and it is said a horse, and it is said a horse with the color of black and the color of white - that is, the whiteness - and it is narrated: from whiteness and remaining, so perhaps the whiteness is a whiteness that is mixed with darkness, as if it is that which is mentioned or the gathering of both. The brightness of [UNTRANSLATED-LATIN: bahaq] in the skin, or as if it is in the skin the brightness of [UNTRANSLATED-LATIN: bahaq], meaning its marking from the whiteness mixed with the darkness arising from [UNTRANSLATED-LATIN: bahaq], which is a disease that changes the color of the skin. It is narrated that Abu Ubaidah said to him: If you intend the lines, then say: as if they are. And if you intend the black and white, then say: as if they are. He said: I intended as if that, woe to you! And what is good about it is that the names of the demonstratives in their duality and plurality and femininity are not in reality, as well as the relative pronouns. Therefore, what came as 'that' in the meaning of the plural, 'what you are commanded' means what you are commanded with, from his saying: I commanded you the good, or you are commanded, meaning you are commanded, naming the object with the source, like the prince's striking.

The brightness is most intense when it is yellow and most vivid. It is said in emphasis: bright yellow and vivid, as it is said: deep black and dark, and bright white and shining. And bright red and vivid red. And bright green and lush. And bright green and dark green. And if you say: bright here is a description of the color, it does not serve as an emphasis for yellow, I say: it does not serve as a description of the color, it rather serves as an emphasis for yellow, except that the color has risen with it like the subject and the color is from its cause and mixed with it. Thus, there is no difference between your saying: bright yellow and bright is its color. And if you say: why was it not said: bright yellow? And what benefit is there in mentioning the color? I say: the benefit is in the emphasis, because the color is a name for the form which is the yellowness, so it is as if it is said: very yellow is its yellowness, it is from your saying: the grandfather is great, and your madness is mad. And from Wahb: If you look at it, it seems to you that the rays of the sun come out from its skin, and joy is pleasure in the heart when benefit is obtained or expected. And from Ali, may Allah be pleased with him: 'Whoever wears yellow sandals will not cease to be in joy as long as he wears them.' [UNTRANSLATED-LATIN: Muwqof, I did not find it: but it was narrated by al-Aqili, al-Tabarani, and al-Khatib from the hadith of Ibn Abbas, may Allah be pleased with both of them. He said: 'Whoever wears yellow sandals will remain in joy as long as he wears them.' And Ibn Abi Hatim said: I asked my father about it: he said: It is a lie. It is fabricated.] Due to His saying: 'It delights the beholders.' And from al-Hasan al-Basri: 'The bright yellow is its color, very black and intense black.' And perhaps it is borrowed from the description of camels because their blackness is topped with yellowness. And with this, it is explained His saying: (The camels are yellow). Al-A'sha said:

'Those are my horses from him, and those are my saddles... They are yellow, their offspring like raisins.'

[UNTRANSLATED-LATIN: If Qais is the one who does good... Al-Ash'ath's echoes have become for the tribes.

Every year it provides me with the young... when placing for the sheep or the young.

Those are my horses from him, and those are my saddles... They are yellow, their offspring like raisins.'

For al-A'sha about Abu al-Ash'ath ibn Qais. And the one who does good - with a fathah - means doing good. And the echoes are the plural of echo, which is the mention of the owl.

The Arabs used to claim that the bones of the head of the slain would turn into an owl and would say: 'Help me!' until his blood vengeance is taken. And 'Shu'ub' is a name for death, and it may be a plural of 'Sha'ab' meaning path, that is, it has become scattered in the paths. This is a metaphor for his killing. The plural form is for glorification, or it is considered. And 'Al-Jumum' is the plural of 'Jum' with the first letter tripled meaning many. And 'Al-Najib' is the noble one among horses and camels. And 'Al-Rikab' are the mounts. They are the mounts, 'Safar' is the plural of 'Asfar' or 'Safra', their offspring predominated by black like raisins. And the intended meaning of 'the yellowness' is the black that is overshadowed by yellowness, for this is the most prized color of camels among them. 'What is it?' is a repetition of the question about its state and description, and an additional inquiry for them to gain more clarity about its description. And about the Prophet, blessings and peace be upon him, 'If they had obstructed even the slightest cow and slaughtered it, it would have sufficed them.' [Ibn Mardawayh, Al-Bazzar, and Ibn Abi Hatim all narrated this through Al-Hasan from Abu Rafi' from Abu Huraira, raised, and in its chain is 'Abbad ibn Mansur, and there is weakness in it, and Al-Tabari from the words of Ibn Abbas, stopped. And from the words of Abu Al-Aliyah, without his saying 'and the meticulousness is ominous' so it is not in the raised or the stopped. I said: His saying 'and the meticulousness is ominous' is from the words of Al-Zamakhshari.] But they insisted, so Allah made things difficult for them.' And meticulousness is ominous. And about some of the caliphs, he wrote to his worker to go to a people, cut down their trees, and demolish their houses, so he wrote to him: 'Which one should I begin with?' He said: 'If I tell you to cut down the trees, you will ask me: Which type of them should I begin with?' And about Umar ibn Abdul Aziz: 'If I command you to give so-and-so a sheep, you will ask me: Is it a female or a male? If I specify, you will say: Is it black or white? If I inform you, you will say: Is it black or white? If I command you to do something, do not question me.' And in the hadith, 'The most grievous of people is the one who asked about something that was not forbidden and it was forbidden because of his question.' [Agreed upon from the hadith of Sa'd ibn Abi Waqqas, may Allah be pleased with him.] 'Indeed, the cows have become similar to us' means that the cows described with the yellow and the tawny are many, so it has become confusing for us which one to slaughter. And it was read: 'Tashabah', meaning they resemble, by dropping the 'ta' and merging it into the 'sheen'. And 'Tashabah' and 'Mutashabah' and 'Mutashabah' were read. And Muhammad Dhul-Shamah read: 'Indeed, the cow resembles', with 'ya' and emphasis. It came in the hadith: 'If they had not specified, I would have shown them the last of eternity.' [I said: Ibn Jarir narrated it through Ibn Jurayj raised, and it is broken.] That is: If they had not said 'If Allah wills.' And the meaning is: We are guided to the cow intended for slaughter, or to what is hidden from us regarding the killer. 'There is no Dhulul' is an adjective for a cow meaning a cow that is not Dhulul, meaning it has not been tamed for plowing [The phrase 'has not been tamed for plowing' in the dictionaries: 'Karrabat' the land if you turned it for cultivation. And in the proverb: 'The plow on the cows', and it is said: 'The dogs on the cows.'] and turning the earth, nor is it from the 'Nawadih' that is used for watering the crops, and 'no' the first is for negation, and the second is additional to emphasize the first, for the meaning is: there is no Dhulul that plows and waters. On the assumption that the two actions are adjectives for Dhulul, as if it were said: there is no Dhulul that is plowing and watering. And Abu Abdur-Rahman Al-Sulami read: 'No Dhulul', meaning there is no Dhulul there: that is, where it is, and this is a negation of its tameness and because it is described as such, it is said: 'It is Dhulul.' And similarly, your saying: 'I passed by a people who are neither stingy nor cowardly.' That is, among them, or where they are. And it was read: 'Tusqa' with the 'ta' being pronounced from 'Asqa'. 'Musallamah' is one that Allah has kept safe from defects or exempted from work, as her people have kept her safe from it, like His saying: 'Or the back that informs of its lineage...' [This was quoted by Sibawayh. And it is said: 'I have crossed the sheep, so it is Mu'abbar, if its wool has increased for leaving it a year without shearing, the back that is Mu'abbar: the one left from shearing, so its wool increases, or because there is no wool on it to shear. And perhaps the intended meaning here is the one left from carrying on it. And it was said: the hair that is stripped. And 'Naba' from it: it turned aside. And 'Anbaytuhu': I turned it aside and distanced it, so what is here means it prevents others from riding it.

And the apparent words of some of them indicate that it is said: a prophet (nabiyy) announces (yunabbī), like a ram (karam) is thrown (yurmā) when it deviates. And what is here from it, meaning it repels from its bridle (berdʿah), because it is close to the skin. And its master (rabbuhu) is by seizing the movement for the weight, meaning its companion. And the meaning is: it is a camel left from work, so it is difficult (muṣʿab) and repels from the rider, because it has not traveled at all, to the extent that its owner has neither performed Hajj nor Umrah: and the apparent words of some of them indicate that 'its master' (rabbuhu) is the preposition (harf jar) which is a preposition for the pronoun without distinction due to the precedence of its reference, and indicating the realization of the negation metaphorically from the meaning of abundance, and it is an interruption between the two connected phrases. And the ascription of the two verbs to the pronoun of the camel is a mental metaphor, because it is one of the tools of Hajj and Umrah.

And the one who said this explained it by saying that it is bare-backed (manjird) and repels from its bridle due to its back from the abundance of travels. It has not traveled for Hajj or Umrah, but rather it travels to the enemies. And if its meaning were as previously mentioned, it would be permissible. So the meaning is that it is difficult (muṣʿab) and has not been ridden or traveled at all, to the extent that it has not traveled for Hajj or Umrah, and this is apparent.

Or it is pure in color, from the one who is safe for him when it is pure for him, nothing from colors has mixed with its yellow, there is no spot in it, no shine in its color from another color besides yellow, so it is entirely yellow even its horn and hoof. And it is originally a source of mixing (wash) and a mixture (shi) and a mixed one (shiyah), if it mixed its color with another color, and from it a bull with mixed legs. I have come with the truth (bi-l-ḥaqq) meaning with the reality of the description of the cow, and there remains no ambiguity in its matter, so they slaughtered it (fa-dhabḥūhā) meaning they obtained the cow that encompasses all these descriptions, so they slaughtered it. And His saying 'and they almost did not do it' (wa mā kādū yafʿalūn) is an expression of their reluctance to exhaust themselves and their delay, and that due to their excessive prolongation and the abundance of their inquiries, they almost did not slaughter it, and their questions almost did not end, and the thread of their elaboration and their deepening in it almost did not break. And it was said: 'and they almost did not slaughter it' due to the high price of it. And it was said: due to the fear of disgrace in revealing the killer.

And it was narrated that there was a righteous elder among the Children of Israel who had a calf, so he brought it to the thicket (al-ghā'idah) and said: O Allah, I entrust it to You for my son until he grows up, and he was dutiful to his parents. So it grew up and was one of the finest and fattest cows, and they negotiated with the orphan and his mother until they bought it for the weight of its musk in gold, and the cow at that time was worth three dinars, and they sought the described cow for forty years. If you say: the cow that the command was about was a cow from the split of cows not specified, then it became specified by color and attributes, so they slaughtered the specified one, what happened to the initial command? I say: it was abrogated (rajʿa mansūkhā) due to the transfer of the ruling to the specified cow, and abrogation before the act is permissible. On the condition that the address was ambiguous, encompassing this described cow just as it encompassed others.

And if the slaughter had occurred upon it by the ruling of the address before the specification, it would have been an obedience to it, just as if it occurred upon it after the specification. And when you killed a soul (wa idh qatal'tum nafsan) the community was addressed due to the existence of the killing among them. So you disputed (fa-dārā'tum) and differed and argued about it, because the disputants repel one another, meaning they push and jostle each other. Or you pushed one another, meaning you attributed the killing of it to one another, so the one who was accused pushed the accuser. Or because the act of pushing itself is a repulsion. Or you pushed one another away from innocence and accused him. And Allah will bring forth what you were concealing (wa-Allāhu mukhrijun mā kuntum taktumūn) manifesting certainly what you concealed of the matter of the killing, He will not leave it concealed. If you say: how does the bringer forth (mukhriq) work while it is in the meaning of the past?

I say: and it has been narrated what was in the future at the time of the dispute, just as the present was narrated in His saying: (bāsiṭun dhirāʿayhi). And this sentence is an interruption between the connected and the connected, which are (fa-dārā'tum) and (fa-qulnā).

And the pronoun in 'strike him' (iḍribūh) either refers to the soul and the masculine is used for the interpretation of the person and the human, or it refers to the slain one due to what is indicated by His saying: (mā kuntum taktumūn) with some of it.

In part of the cow. There is a difference regarding the part that was struck, as it is said: its tongue, and it is said: its right thigh, and it is said: its backbone, and it is said: the bone that is next to the cartilage which is the root of the ear, and it is said: the ear, and it is said: the piece between the shoulders. The meaning is:

So they struck it and it came to life, and this was omitted due to the indication of His saying: (Thus Allah brings the dead to life).

It is narrated that when they struck it, it stood up by the permission of Allah, and its veins were gushing blood, and it said: So-and-so killed me, and So-and-so, not my cousins, then it fell dead. So they took him and killed him, and no murderer was inherited after that. (Thus Allah brings the dead to life).

Either it is a speech directed to those who were present at the life of the slain, meaning we said to them: Thus Allah brings the dead to life on the Day of Resurrection, and shows you His signs and proofs that He is capable of all things, so that you may understand.

You act according to the matter of your minds. And whoever is able to bring one soul to life is able to bring all souls to life, as there is no exclusivity so that you do not deny resurrection. Or it may be a speech directed to the deniers in the time of the Messenger of Allah, blessings and peace be upon him. If you say: Why did He not bring him to life from the beginning? And why was it a condition for bringing him to life that the cow be slaughtered and struck with part of it? I say: In causes and conditions there are rulings and benefits.

It was conditioned for that due to the closeness and fulfillment of obligations and earning reward, and indicating the goodness of presenting the offering before the request, and what is in the severity upon them for their severity is of kindness to them, and for others in leaving the severity and hastening to comply with the commands of Allah, glorified and exalted is He, and adhering to them immediately, without investigation and excessive questioning, and benefiting the orphan with profitable trade, and indicating the blessing of righteousness towards parents, and compassion for children, and making the mocker ignorant of what he does not know its essence nor can he perceive its reality from the words of the wise, and clarifying that it is the right of the one who draws near to his Lord to choose well in what he draws near with, and that he should choose a young one, not old or weak, beautiful in color, free from defects, pleasing to the eye, and that he should pay a high price for it, as it is narrated from Umar, may Allah be pleased with him, that he sacrificed a she-camel for three hundred dinars.

And that the increase in the address abrogates it, and that abrogation before the action is permissible even if it is not permissible before the time of the action and its possibility, as it leads to uncertainty. And it should be known by what was commanded regarding touching the dead with the dead and the attainment of life afterward that the effective cause is the cause itself, not the causes, because the two deaths occurring in the two bodies cannot rationally give rise to life.

If you say: Why was the story not narrated in its order, and it should have been that the mention of the slain and the striking with part of the cow comes before the command to slaughter it, and it should be said: And when you killed a soul and disputed therein, we said: Slaughter a cow and strike him with part of it? I say: All that has been narrated from the stories of the Children of Israel is merely a recounting of what was found among them of crimes, and a rebuke for them for it, and for what has been renewed among them of the great signs.

And these two stories, each one of them is independent in a type of rebuke even though they are connected and united, the first is for rebuking them for mockery and the neglect to hasten to comply and what follows that. The second is for rebuking them for killing the prohibited soul and what follows from the great sign. And the story of the command to slaughter the cow was presented before the mention of the slain because if it had been done in reverse, it would have been one story, and the purpose of the dual rebuke would have been lost.

And indeed, a point was observed after the second was resumed as a story in itself that it was connected to the first, indicating their unity by the pronoun of the cow, not by its explicit name in His saying: (Strike him with part of it).

Until it becomes clear that they are two stories regarding reprimand and emphasizing it by presenting the second as a continuation while delaying it. And that it is one story with the pronoun referring back to the cow.