Explanation of the author's statement: "Like one who swore not to eat butter but ate a cake containing butter whose taste is not apparent, or one who swore not to eat eggs but ate a cake made with eggs; he has not broken his oath, even if the taste of the thing he swore against appears."

The Shaykh : "Khabyis" means a baked item. This khabyis does not show any trace of butter, so he has not broken his oath. Similarly, if one swore not to eat eggs but ate a cake made with eggs, he has not broken his oath. Why? Because it is not called eggs. But what is a "natif"? The closest example is... cake. Yes, cake. I think there are types: cake that is mostly eggs, and cake that is mostly flour. If it is mostly flour and the eggs are absorbed and consumed within it, he has not broken his oath. But if it is mostly eggs, or equal in proportion, or if their effect is apparent, then he has broken his oath.
He said: "And if the taste of something from the thing he swore against appears, he has broken his oath". Why? Ah? Because he did what he swore against, so he is one who has broken his oath. Now, the summary of this chapter is that if none of the three ranks mentioned in the first chapter are present, we return to what the name encompasses in its reality, which is three categories: legal, customary, and linguistic. The legal is given priority, then the customary, then the linguistic. Yes, now.