caused to the original partner by the new partner. The new partner may be an ill-tempered and difficult person, so the Lawgiver prescribed pre-emption in order to remove this harm. Moreover, this new partner may not be compatible with the original one, leading to disputes, quarrels, and mutual resentment—matters from which the Sacred Law seeks to keep people away.

His statement, “for a monetary consideration,” means that the consideration must be something of monetary value; if it is not, then there is no right of pre-emption. Considerations may be monetary or non-monetary. Monetary considerations include money, clothing, cars, and the like. A monetary consideration includes both tangible assets and usufructs. An example involving tangible assets is where a person sells his property to someone in exchange for cars. The consideration here is monetary, consisting of tangible assets rather than usufructs.

An example involving usufructs is where a person rents a house and gives the owner of the house his share in this piece of land, for example. Here, the consideration is a usufruct, because he gave his share of this land to a person from whom he rented a house, and received the consideration in the form of a usufruct. There is no doubt that a usufruct is among monetary considerations.

If he gave it as a settlement for an intentional killing—for intentional killing entails retaliation—such that this partner deliberately killed someone, we would say: You are subject to retaliation. Then he and the heirs of the slain person agree to waive retaliation in exchange for compensation equal to the blood-money, or less or more than it. Does the original partner have the right to take that share by pre-emption? No, because the consideration here is not monetary; it is retaliation for the killing of a person, so it cannot be taken by pre-emption.

It was also said that it may be taken by pre-emption, with the partner taking it for its market value. This view is more correct, because it passed from his ownership