in sale documents the statement: “Thus, the item sold becomes the property of the buyer, together with all its rights and boundaries,” among which is the right of pre-emption. This is the correct view, because it is an established right and is therefore inherited from the deceased just as property is inherited, as are the rest of one’s rights.

His statement, “and he takes it for the full price”: the pronoun in “he takes” refers to the claimant of pre-emption, not to the heir. That is, whoever wishes to take the share by pre-emption must take it for the full price, without haggling or attempting to reduce any part of the price. Thus, if the buyer purchased it, for example, for one thousand, the claimant of pre-emption is told: “Take it for one thousand.” If he says, “I will take it for nine hundred,” we say: “Your right of pre-emption has lapsed; you may not take it for less than one thousand.” If, however, the pre-emption has been effected and the claimant then says to the buyer, “I want you to waive one hundred of the thousand for me,” this is permissible. Even so, the claimant of pre-emption should not ask the buyer to waive anything, for this is blameworthy begging, and because it may place the buyer in an awkward position, causing him to reduce the price when he does not wish to do so.

The author’s words, “for the full price,” also indicate that he takes it at the purchase price, not at its market value.

His statement, “If he is unable to pay part of it, his right of pre-emption lapses”: the subject of “is unable” is the claimant of pre-emption. Thus, if he says, “I have only nine thousand, while the price is ten thousand,” the right of pre-emption lapses. For if we were to affirm pre-emption despite his inability to pay part of the price, this would harm the buyer. The buyer will have the property taken from him compulsorily, so we would wrong him in two respects: first, by taking it from him against his will; and second, by imposing upon him the harsher arrangement with respect to the price.