the taking [of the share] on behalf of the other through preemption, because it is like a purchase for him. If the guardian is a partner to the one against whom he is selling, he may not take it; because he is suspect in his sale, and because he is in the position of one who purchases for himself from the wealth of his orphan. If the guardian sells his own share, he may take it for the orphan through preemption if there is a benefit in it for him, because suspicion is negated, as he is unable to increase its price since the buyer would not agree with him, and because the price is obtained for him from the buyer, just as it would be obtained from the orphan, unlike his selling the orphan's wealth, where he could decrease the price to take the share for himself. If the matter is referred to the judge and he sells it on his behalf, then the guardian may take it at that point, due to the absence of suspicion. If there is a father in the place of the guardian and he sells the minor's share, he may take it through preemption because he is permitted to purchase his child's wealth from himself, due to the absence of suspicion. If a share in a company involving a fetus is sold, its guardian may not take it for him through preemption because it is not possible to grant him ownership [of it] except by way of a bequest. When the fetus is born and then grows up, he may take it through preemption, like a minor once he reaches maturity.

Section: If the minor's guardian waives his preemption right in which there is a benefit, then wishes to take it, he may do so according to the analogy of the school, because it did not lapse by his waiver. For this reason, the minor possesses the right to take it upon reaching maturity, [whereas if it had lapsed], he would not possess the right to take it. It is possible that he does not possess the right to take it, because that leads to the establishment of the right of preemption over a delay, and that is contrary to the report and the meaning. This differs from the minor's taking it upon reaching maturity, because the right is renewed for him upon his reaching maturity, so he does not possess the right to delay it at that time; likewise for the absentee taking it upon his arrival. As for if he left it because there was no benefit in it, then later wished to take it while the situation remained as it was, he would not possess that right, just as he would not possess it initially. If a benefit arises in it, or if he was insolvent at the time of the sale and then became solvent afterward, this is based on whether it lapses by that. If we say: It does not lapse, and the minor has the right to take it upon reaching maturity, then its ruling is the ruling of what has a benefit in it. If we say: It lapses, then he has no right to take it under any circumstances, because it has lapsed absolutely, so it is like the case where an adult waives his preemption right.