His statement, “The purchaser may leave it until the harvest and the picking of the fruit,” means that the purchaser may leave it until the harvest—this applies to crops—and until the picking of the fruit—this applies to fruit. He may pick it before then, because it belongs to him. The purchaser now owns the fruit, so he may pick it before its usual time of picking, or leave it until its usual time of picking. Likewise, in the case of crops, he may harvest them before the time of harvest or leave them until the time of harvest, because they belong to him.

But this is not unrestricted. Rather, it is subject to the condition that delaying it beyond the time of harvest and picking does not harm the original property. If it does cause harm, then he has no right to do so. It is said that if the fruit of a date palm is not picked at its proper time, it harms the palm tree. If this is established, we say to the purchaser: when the time for picking arrives, you must pick it and may not delay it, because of the harm involved. The same applies at the time of harvest: if the time of harvest arrives and he says, “I do not have equipment with which to harvest,” we say: you must harvest it, because the right belongs to the seller.

Thus, the author’s statement, “leave it until the harvest and the picking of the fruit,” indicates that he may not leave it beyond that except with the seller’s consent. And that is correct.

His statement, “The seller is obliged to water it,” means watering the crop and watering the fruit; what is meant is watering the trees. But he qualified this by saying: “if it needs that, even if the original property is harmed”—such as when the weather is hot and its roots dry out, causing the fruit to shrivel and change. We then say: the seller is obliged to water it, even if the original property is harmed.

If someone were to ask: How can we say that he is obliged to water it even if it causes harm