as of the day of adjudication, in its undyed state. If its value is eighty-five, it is then valued as of that same day in its dyed state. If its value is ninety-five, the buyer may either retain it and recover one-fifth of the price, or return it and recover the entire price, becoming a co-owner of the cloth in the proportion that the difference of ten between the two valuations bears to ninety-five—that is, two nineteenths.

If, however, market prices have fallen, it is not valued in its undyed state as of the day of adjudication, but only in its dyed state. If its dyed value on that day is eighty-five, then, should he return it, he becomes a co-owner of one seventeenth of the cloth. This is the proportion that the difference of five between its dyed value on the day of adjudication and its undyed value on the day of purchase bears to its dyed value on the day of adjudication.

In summary, if market prices have risen, returning the cloth necessarily requires valuing it as of the day of adjudication in both its dyed and undyed states, since the buyer cannot become a co-owner on account of an increase in market prices. If market prices have fallen, it is valued as of the day of adjudication only in its dyed state, and he becomes a co-owner to the extent that its dyed value on that day exceeds its undyed value on the day of purchase, as explained above.

This is the opinion of some jurists versed in legal reasoning, but I find it questionable. Legal analogy requires that the cloth be valued as of the day of adjudication in both its dyed and undyed states, even if market prices have fallen, so that the buyer becomes a co-owner to the extent of the value added by dyeing in either case. This is because market fluctuations do not constitute a material alteration, whether prices rise or fall, and the seller must take back his cloth with any increase or decrease in its value. Just as the increase belongs to him, without the buyer sharing in it except to the extent of the value added specifically by dyeing, so too must he bear the decrease, while the buyer becomes a co-owner to the extent of the value added by dyeing. That share is not reduced because market prices have fallen.

Section

As for the third situation, where the item sold suffers a diminution, this too takes one of five forms: (the first) a diminution due to market fluctuations; (the second) a diminution through a change in the condition of the item sold; (the third) a diminution through a change in the item itself; (the fourth) a diminution involving something of a different kind from the item sold; and (the fifth) a diminution caused by something the buyer has done to the item sold.

A diminution due to market fluctuations is disregarded. The buyer may either return the item without owing anything, or retain it without recovering anything. As for a diminution through a change in the condition of the item sold, examples include buying a female slave and arranging her marriage, or buying a male slave who then marries, commits fornication, or steals