if it is sold for debt, then it is like the slave. If we say it is not to be sold, the husband is not compelled to return to half of it. If the slave woman or the slave enters into a kitabah contract, the husband is not compelled to return to the actual entity, because it has depreciated. If he chooses to return, and we say that the kitabah prevents the sale, it prevents the return. And if we say that it does not prevent the sale, it is possible that it does not prevent the return, just like tadbir, and it is possible that it does prevent it, because the kitabah is a binding contract intended to remove ownership, so it prevents the return, just like a mortgage.

The third category is a binding disposal that is not intended to remove ownership, such as leasing (ijarah) and marriage. This is a depreciation, so the husband is given the choice between returning to his half in its depreciated state, because he agreed to his right in a depreciated state, or returning to half of its value. If he returns to half of the leased property, he must wait until the lease expires. If it is said: You have said regarding the fruit that appears on the palm tree: If he says, "I will wait until the fruit is finished," he does not have the right to do so. We say: The difference between the two is that in that issue, the favor is to him, so she is not obligated to accept his favor, unlike our issue; and because that leads to conflict regarding the irrigation of the fruit, the time of its harvest, and cutting it for fear of thirst or other reasons, unlike our issue.

Section: If he gave her a share (of property) as a dowry, does the pre-emptor (shafi') have the right to take it? There are two opinions. If we say: He has the right to take it, and he takes it, then the husband divorces her, he returns to half of its value, because her ownership of it has ceased. If he divorces her before he takes it by pre-emption, and the pre-emptor makes a claim, there are two opinions regarding it: The first is that the pre-emptor is prioritized, because his right is earlier; for it was established by the marriage, while the husband's right was established by the divorce, and because the husband returns to a substitute, which is half of the value, while the pre-emptor's right, if it is voided, is voided without a substitute. The second is: