yield—even if pollinated—until it ripens, because before ripening it cannot validly be sold separately from the trees. The analogous precedent is fruit that has not been pollinated. The rationale for the third view is that, until it dries, the fruit remains attached to the trees. If he sells it separately from them, the buyer does not assume the risk of its loss upon conclusion of the sale, since he is entitled to a reduction in the price in the event of crop damage. It must therefore be returned with the trees and does not constitute yield belonging to him. The rationale for the fourth view is that, even when dry, the fruit remains attached to the trees until harvested. As regards the permissibility of exchanging it for other foodstuffs, it is unlike food that has already been gathered, since it remains attached to the seller’s property. It must therefore be returned with the trees and does not constitute yield. The analogous precedent is fruit that has not been pollinated.
As for the first case in the second situation—where he purchases date palms bearing unpollinated fruit and discovers a defect in them while the fruit remains unpollinated—Ibn al-Qāsim’s statements differ as to whether, upon returning them, he may recover the expenses of watering and tending them, if he has done so. Al-Fadl reports from him, and from Ashhab, that he may recover these expenses, while Ibn al-Qāsim’s statements in al-Mudawwana indicate that he may not.
Section
If he harvests the fruit in this situation before discovering the defect, this constitutes a diminution in value that gives him the choice between returning the palms and compensating for that diminution, or retaining them and recovering compensation for the defect, as explained above.
As for the second case in the second situation—where he purchases date palms bearing unpollinated fruit and discovers the defect after the fruit has been pollinated—the ruling is as explained above concerning one who purchases date palms bearing no fruit and discovers a defect in them after their fruit has been pollinated. We have already described this.
As for the third case in the second situation—where he purchases date palms bearing unpollinated fruit and discovers a defect in them after the fruit has ripened—the ruling is likewise as explained above concerning one who purchases date palms bearing no fruit and subsequently discovers a defect in them when they bear ripe fruit. We have already described this and the differences of opinion concerning it.
As for the first case in the third situation—where he purchases date palms bearing pollinated fruit and discovers a defect in them before the fruit ripens—he returns them together with their fruit according to all authorities, and recovers the expenses of watering and tending them according to Ibn al-Qāsim and Ashhab.