What is the ruling concerning a bequest of a specific sum contingent upon the remainder of a third share?

Primary text

If a testator bequeathed one-third of his wealth to one person, one hundred (units) to another, and the remainder of the third share to a third person, and the third share does not exceed one hundred, the bequest for the remainder of the third share is void. If the third share exceeds one hundred, and the heirs ratify the bequests, the bequests are executed as stipulated. If the heirs reject the bequests, there are two views. The first view states that each of the beneficiaries returns to half of their bequest, as the bequests are reduced by half, and the deficit affects each according to their share in the bequest, consistent with other reduced bequests. The second view holds that the one receiving the remainder receives nothing until the stipulated one hundred is completed for the first recipient. Then, the remainder of the third is divided equally between the other two beneficiaries, and the recipient of the one hundred contends with the recipient of the remainder, without giving the latter anything, because the remainder is only due after the completion of the one hundred for its recipient, and that which is completed for him. This contention is permissible without payment, analogous to the full-blood brother contending with the grandfather over the paternal half-brother's share without giving him anything.