unjustly rooted (irq zalim), and an unjustly rooted claim has no standing, unlike our issue, for he is not unjust, so he possesses a right. Once this is established, it is impossible to mandate its value as entitled to remain on the land, because he is not entitled to that, nor [can it be] its value as removed, because if its value as removed were mandatory, he would own the right to remove it and would not guarantee anything. Furthermore, it might be of the type that has no value once removed. Our companions did not mention the method for determining the value; therefore, the apparent position is that the land is appraised with the plants and buildings on it, then it is appraised vacant of both, and the difference between them is the value of the plants and buildings, which the pre-emptor shall pay to the purchaser if he wishes, or [he pays] what was diminished from it if he chooses removal, because that is the amount added by the planting and building. It is also possible that the plants and buildings be appraised as entitled to remain for a fee, or to be taken at value if both refuse to remove them. If the plants have a time at which they are removed and thus have value, and if they were removed before that time, they would have no value, or their value would be low; if the pre-emptor chooses to remove them before their time, he may do so, because he guarantees the depreciation, thereby compensating for the purchaser's harm, whether the depreciation is large or small, and the detriment of the significant depreciation falls upon the pre-emptor, and he has consented to bear it. If he planted or built alongside the pre-emptor or his agent in undivided property, and then the pre-emptor took it, the ruling regarding taking his share of that is the same as the ruling regarding taking all of it after partition.

Section: If he planted in the land, the pre-emptor has the right to take it through preemption, and the purchaser's crop remains until the time of harvest, because its harm does not persist, and there is no fee upon him because he planted it in his own property. Furthermore, the pre-emptor purchased the land while it contained the seller's crop, so it was allowed to remain until harvest without a fee, just as in cases not subject to preemption. If the trees had visible fruit, it having fruited while in the purchaser's property, it remains his until the time of picking, just like the crop.

Section: When the sold item grows in the hand of the purchaser, one of two situations must apply: one, that it is a connected growth, such as trees when they become more abundant, or fruit that is not yet visible; in this case, the pre-emptor takes it along with its increase, because...