see that the seller must water it if it requires watering, and that he cannot compel the buyer to harvest it before it is fully ripe—or before it has dried, if it is a kind not harvested until dry?

As for produce that the buyer can take and remove without spoiling it, hastening its removal may nevertheless cause him harm, since he bought it on the understanding that he could harvest and remove it with the customary allowance for delay. An example is fruit harvested fresh that he buys after it has fully ripened, or buys before it has fully ripened and that subsequently suffers calamity damage after becoming fully ripe, once enough time has elapsed for him to harvest it, but before the customary allowance for delay has expired.

In my view, such cases are subject to Mālik’s differing rulings concerning calamity damage to vegetables: on one occasion, he held that a reduction is granted, and on another, that none is granted. The rationale for requiring a reduction is that the produce perished before the end of the customary period allowed for harvesting on which the purchase was based. The rationale for denying it is that the buyer has taken possession through the seller’s placing the produce at his disposal: had he wished, he could have harvested it without spoiling it. He has merely left his own property standing in the hope of some benefit. Both rationales apply to fruit after it has fully ripened. This also accounts for the disagreement concerning calamity damage to cane, and applies to fresh broad beans as well.

If, however, fruit or vegetables suffer calamity damage after the customary allowance for delaying their harvest has expired, there is no disagreement that no reduction is granted, since the seller did not enter into the transaction on that basis.

If fruit suffers calamity damage after becoming fully ripe but before enough time has elapsed for the buyer to harvest it, or vegetables suffer such damage after the sale has been concluded and the seller has placed them at the buyer’s disposal, but before enough time has elapsed for him to harvest them, then, in my view, these cases too are subject to disagreement. This follows the disagreement over liability when a filled measure is lost while in the buyer’s hands, before he empties it into his own container. On this reasoning, there are three opinions on the matter:

The first is that the buyer assumes the risk for the fruit, and the seller ceases to be liable for a reduction on account of calamity damage, as soon as the fruit is fully ripe—even if insufficient time has elapsed thereafter for the buyer to harvest it.