Reading from the author's text with commentary and collation of manuscripts: "And this meaning has been attested by the Shari'ah as being considered in this ruling

The reader: "And this meaning has been attested by the Shari'ah as being considered in this ruling, and it has been explicitly stated that it has an effect. Therefore, it is one of the relevant meanings that have an effect. Indeed, mere relevance, when coupled with conjunction, indicates the 'illah (operative cause) according to those who hold to the close relevant cause, and they are many among the jurists, from our school and others. And those who do not accept anything but the effective cause do not suffice with mere relevance, until the Shari'ah indicates that such a description is effective in such a ruling, and this is the view of many jurists as well, from our school and others. And these people, when they see a ruling in which a meaning has been stated to have an effect"

The Shaykh : in which a meaning has been stated to have an effect
The reader: "And these people, when they see a ruling in which a meaning has been stated to have an effect in a similar ruling in another place, they attribute that stated ruling to that cause. And here is a third opinion stated by many jurists from our school and others as well. It is that a stated ruling is not attributed to a cause except by a description that the Shari'ah has indicated is the cause for it, and it is not sufficient that its counterpart or its type was attributed to it. To summarize the difference between the three opinions: If we see that the Lawgiver has stated a ruling and indicated its cause, as He said regarding the cat

It is not unclean; it is one of those (males or females) who go round among you.

إنها ليست بنجس إنها من الطوافين عليكم والطوافات

Sunan Abi Dawud 75Hasan Sahih (Al-Albani)

then this cause is called the stated cause, or the one pointed to. Whether we know its relevance or not, we act according to it by the agreement of the three groups, even if they differ on whether this is called qiyas (analogical reasoning) or not. And its example in people's speech is if a master says to his slave: "Do not let so-and-so enter my house, for he is an innovator," or "for he is black," or the like. It is understood from this that he does not let anyone enter his house who is an innovator or who is black. This is similar to saying: "Do not let an innovator or a black person enter my house." For this reason, we act similarly in the chapter of oaths. If a man says: "I will not wear this garment with which he has done me a favor," he breaks his oath if he wears something whose value is like its value and which is"

The Shaykh : Ah?
The student: I have "with which so-and-so has done me a favor"
The reader: This refers to it, saying "In the printed edition, 'so-and-so' was added"

The Shaykh : how
The reader: He says "In the printed edition, 'so-and-so' was added"

The Shaykh : And the meaning is clear
The reader: "he breaks his oath if he wears something whose value is like its value and which is a favor, or the like" In the printed edition, it says "and which is its price"

The Shaykh : And by Allah, it is better, meaning if he says: "By Allah, I will not wear this garment with which he has done me a favor," or "with which he does me a favor," if he took its price, he would have broken his oath. Why?
The reader: The favor was realized

The Shaykh : Because the cause, which is the favor, exists in the price. Yes.
The reader: "But if we see that the Lawgiver has ruled with a ruling and did not mention its cause, but has mentioned the cause of its counterpart or its type, such as He permitted the father to marry off his young virgin daughter without her consent. And we have seen that He permitted him to take control of her wealth because she is young. Do we believe that the cause of the authority of marriage is youth, for example, just as the authority over wealth is so? Or do we say: Rather, there may be another cause for marriage, which is virginity, for example? This cause is the effective one, meaning that the Lawgiver has explained its effect in a stated ruling and remained silent about explaining its effect in a similar ruling. The first two groups accept it, and in reality, this is establishing the cause by analogy, for he says: Just as this description had an effect on the ruling in that place, so it has an effect in this place. The third group does not accept it except with a specific indication, because it is possible that one type of rulings has different causes. Of this type is that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him)

He prohibited a man from selling over the sale of his brother, or bidding over the bid of his brother, or proposing a woman over the proposal of his brother.

نهى عن أن يبيع الرجل على بيع أخيه أو يستام الرجل على سوم أخيه أو يخطب الرجل على خطبة أخيه

This is attributed to the corruption of relations it contains, just as it was attributed in His saying

Do not propose a woman over the proposal of her brother, nor over the proposal of her paternal or maternal aunt, for if you do that, you will sever your family ties.

لا تنكح المرأة على عمتها ولا على خالتها فإنكم إذا فعلتم ذلك قطّعتم أرحامكم

And although this example shows the attribution of cause in it, and what does not appear in the first one"

The Shaykh : What does not appear in it, what does not appear
The reader: "And although this example shows the attribution of cause in it, what does not appear in the first one, that is only because no relevant description for the prohibition appears in the first one except this. And the investigation (al-sabr) is a specific proof for the cause, and its counterpart in people's speech is if a man says: "Do not give to this poor man, for he is an innovator," and then another poor innovator asks him, and he says: "Do not give to him." And it may be that that poor man is his enemy. So does he rule that the cause is innovation, or does he hesitate because it is possible that the cause is enmity?"