that the master hands this enslaved person over to the injured party, who then takes ownership of him.

Third: his statement, “or to sell him and pay his price,” meaning that the master sells this enslaved person and hands his price over to the injured party. If it so happens that his price does not reach the value of the damage, we say to the injured party: You are entitled to no more than this, even if the master is wealthy, because this offense occurred without the master’s permission, so he is not liable for it. However, if it is assumed that this master knows that the enslaved person is wicked and destructive of property and lives, then we may say that the liability attaches to the master’s financial liability, just as they have said concerning one who keeps a vicious dog: he is liable for whatever it destroys.

Which of these three options should the master choose?

The answer: that depends on the circumstances. If he has wealth and the enslaved person is valuable to him, he will choose to ransom him. If he has nothing, or wishes to rid himself of this enslaved person, and the injured party poses no danger to the enslaved person through mistreatment or otherwise, then he will hand him over, thereby freeing himself of him. He may also free himself of him and of the burden by selling him and handing over his price. But if he fears that the injured party may harm the enslaved person, violate his honor, or do something else to him, he will choose to sell him and hand his price over to the injured party.

If the enslaved person dies before any of these three options is carried out, what is the ruling?

The answer: the injured party is entitled to nothing, because the liability was attached to the enslaved person himself, and the master is free of liability.