the other is two hundred, and the value of each of them is one hundred. If the debt of the killer is greater, it is not transferred to the debt of the victim, because there is no purpose in it. If the debt of the victim is greater, it is transferred to the killer, because the mortgagee has an interest in that. Is the killer sold and his value made a pledge in place of the victim, or is it transferred as it is? There are two views: one is that he is not sold, because there is no benefit in it; the second is that he is sold, because perhaps a bidder will increase the price, reaching more than his [original] value. If he is offered for sale and no one increases the price, he is not sold, for lack of that. The third issue: the two debts are equal and the values are different, such as if the debt of each of them is one hundred, and the value of one of them is one hundred, and the other is two hundred. If the value of the victim is greater, there is no purpose in the transfer, so it remains as it is. If the value of the offender is greater, he is sold to the extent of the offense, and that becomes a pledge for the debt of the victim, while the remainder is a pledge for his own debt. If they agree to keeping it and transferring the debt to it, it becomes a pledge for both. If one of the two debts falls due, it is sold in any case, because if his debt is the one that is due, it is sold so that he may be satisfied from its price, and what remains of it is a pledge for the other debt; if the due debt is the other, it is sold to satisfy it to the extent of its amount, and the remainder is a pledge for his own debt. The fourth issue: the two debts differ and the values differ, such as if one of the debts is fifty and the other is eighty, and the value of one of them is one hundred and the other is two hundred. If the debt of the victim is greater, it is transferred to it; otherwise, it is not. As for if the victim is a pledge with someone other than the mortgagee of the killer, the master has the right to retaliation, because it is prioritized over the right of the mortgagee, evidenced by the fact that an offense warranting property is prioritized over it, so retaliation is even more appropriate. If he exacts retaliation, the pledge in the victim becomes void, because the offense against him did not warrant something that is placed as a pledge in his stead, and he owes the value of the one against whom retaliation was exacted, and it shall be a pledge, because he invalidated the right of the collateral in him by his own choice. The master has the right to pardon in exchange for property, so the offense becomes like an offense warranting property, and the property is established in the person of the slave, because if the master had committed an offense against the slave, the indemnity for his offense would have been owed to the right of the mortgagee, so it is even more appropriate that it be established against his slave.