If the share was defective, then the purchaser's right is only in retrieving the price, and he has already obtained it from the preemptor, so there is no benefit in the return. In our case, the seller's right is in retrieving the share, and that is not achieved while the right of preemption is taken; thus, they differ. If the seller does not return [the defective slave] until the preemptor has taken it, he has the right to return the slave, but he does not possess the right to retrieve the sold item; because the preemptor took ownership of it upon taking it, so the seller does not possess the right to invalidate his ownership, just as if the purchaser sold it to a third party, for preemption is a sale in reality. However, he returns the value of the share because it is in the position of something destroyed, and the purchaser has already taken the value of the slave from the preemptor; so do they seek recourse from one another? There are two opinions regarding this. One of them is: They do not seek recourse from one another, because the preemptor took it for the price upon which the contract occurred, which is the value of the slave when sound, free of defects, as evidenced by the fact that if the seller learns of the defect, he possesses the right to return it. It is also possible that he takes it for its value while defective, because he only gave a defective slave, so he should not take the value of other than what he gave. The second is: They do seek recourse from one another, because the preemptor only takes it for the price upon which the contract settled, and what the contract settled upon is the value of the share. If we say: They do seek recourse from one another, then whichever of them paid more, he seeks the difference from his companion. If the seller does not return the slave, but takes its compensation (arsh), the purchaser does not seek recourse from the preemptor for anything, because he only gave him the value of the slave as not being defective. If he pays its value while defective, the purchaser seeks recourse from him for what he paid of its compensation. If he pardons him and does not take compensation, the preemptor does not seek recourse from him for anything, because the sale is binding from the perspective of the purchaser, he does not possess the right to rescind it, so it is similar to if he had reduced some of the price for him after the contract became binding. If the share returns to the purchaser, by sale, gift, inheritance, or otherwise, the preemptor does not have the right to take it by the first sale, because the purchaser's ownership of it has ceased, his right to it has been severed, and his right has transferred to the value. Once he has taken it, no right remains for him, unlike if he usurped something he was unable to return and paid its value, then...