a limb, the rest of the body responds with fever and sleeplessness” (1). This defect must therefore affect the rest of the body. Even if it is assumed not to have any effect because it has healed and passed, it still affects the value. I bought it from you for one hundred on the understanding that it was sound; but if it is one-eyed, it will be worth eighty, and its value is thereby diminished. Accordingly, we say that the buyer has the right to rescind the sale because of a defect confined to the excluded part. The seller cannot say, “This concerns what I excluded, so you cannot return it.” The evidence is the hadith. If it is assumed that the effect of this defect has disappeared, then we return to the reasoning based on diminished value.

His statement, “And the opposite is fat”: fat may not be excluded when selling an animal, because it is unknown, being mixed with the meat. It cannot be known until the animal is slaughtered, the fat scraped off, and separated. While it remains in that state, it cannot be known. Thus, if he says, “I sell you this sheep, except for its fat,” the exclusion is invalid; and if the exclusion is invalid, the sale is invalid.

His statement, “and the fetus”: excluding the fetus is likewise invalid. For example, if he sells a pregnant ewe and says, “I sell you this pregnant ewe, except for its fetus,” this is invalid, because the seller knows that it is a good ewe and that its offspring will be good. The exclusion is therefore invalid because the fetus is unknown. This is the established position of the school, and it is one of the two views on the issue.