What is the ruling on rescission if the injury to the slave is considered a loss of a quality rather than a loss of a physical part?

Primary text

The opinion attributed to the Qadi suggests that, by analogy with the established school ruling, the seller should have the right to rescind because the injury constitutes the loss of a quality, similar to the loss of a trade skill or the damage to a garment. If rescission occurs, the situation regarding the injury must be examined. If the injury is minor and incurs no specific compensation (*arsh*), such as if caused by an act of God, an animal, the bankruptcy trustee's action, the slave's own slave, or the slave injuring himself, then the seller has no claim to *arsh* if they choose rescission.