and we rent a place in which to store it, then the rent for the storage place is the responsibility of the pledgor. It should not be said: the storage serves the interests of everyone, so its rent ought to be borne by everyone. We reply: No, because the corpus of this property belongs to the pledgor; its benefit is his, and its liability rests upon him.

“It is a trust in the hand of the pledgee: if it is destroyed without any transgression on his part, then he is not liable for anything. Nothing of his debt is waived by its destruction. If part of it is destroyed, the remainder remains pledged for the entire debt, and no part of it is released while any part of the debt remains. An addition to the pledge, but not to the debt, is permissible. If someone pledges an item to two people and repays one of them, or if two people pledge an item to someone and he receives repayment from one of them, then it is released in proportion to that person’s share.”

His statement, “It is”: the pronoun refers to the pledged property.

His statement, “a trust in the hand of the pledgee”: the pledgee’s possession is a possession of trust. The reason for this is that the property came into his possession with its owner’s permission. Every property that comes into a person’s possession by the owner’s permission, or by the permission of the Sacred Law, is held by its possessor in trust. An example of permission from the owner is an agent: he takes possession of the property with its owner’s permission and is therefore a trustee. An example of permission from the Sacred Law is the guardian of an orphan: he takes possession of the orphan’s property and disposes of it in the best manner by permission of the Sacred Law.

The opposite is the usurper, whose possession of the property is not a trust; hence, he is liable for it in all circumstances. As for this case, the author says, “It is a trust in the hand of the pledgee,” because he has not transgressed; rather, he took possession of it lawfully. Since it is held in trust, he is not permitted to dispose of it, except for what the Sacred Law has exempted in the statement: “A pledged riding animal may be ridden in return for its maintenance, and the milk of a pledged milking animal may be drunk in return for its maintenance.” (1) Apart from that, it is not permissible to dispose of it, as has preceded.

However, his statement that it is held in trust entails his statement:

“If it is destroyed without any transgression on his part, then he is not liable for anything.” “If it is destroyed...”