What is the ruling if the first master is insolvent and the second master is solvent when impregnating the same female slave under misconception?

Primary text

The ruling is the same as the third scenario (both insolvent), except that the child of the second master is entirely free. This is because freedom was established for half the child through the act of the solvent second master, and this freedom extends (*sarayat*) to the entirety of the child. The second master owes half the child's value to his partner. The first master does not owe anything for the mother because half of her is his *umm walad*. If this were accepted, the first master should not owe half the child's value, as the child's status follows the mother's. Therefore, if the claim of *umm walad* status prevents the extension (*sarayah*) of manumission concerning the mother, it must also prevent it for that which is secondary to her.