unless he intended it as a voluntary gift. If he intended it as a voluntary gift, he may not recover it, because recovering it despite intending it as a gift would amount to taking back a gift, which is prohibited. Nor is it a condition that he intend reimbursement.

Thus, if he spends with the intention of reimbursement, he may recover in all cases; and if he spends with the intention of making a voluntary gift, he may not recover in any case, according to both views. But if he spends without intending either reimbursement or a voluntary gift, then according to the established position, he may not recover, because he must intend reimbursement. According to what the author of the main text says, however, he may recover, because the basic principle is that whatever one spends on another person’s property is recoverable, unless the intention of making a voluntary gift conflicts with this.

“And even if he did not seek the judge’s permission. The same applies to a deposited item and hired animals whose owner has fled. If the pledged property falls into disrepair and he repairs it without permission, he may recover only his materials.”

His statement, “Even if he did not seek the judge’s permission”: the judge here means the qadi. This indicates a difference of opinion. Some scholars say that he may not recover unless he seeks the judge’s permission. In other words, if the pledgee is unable to seek the pledgor’s permission, we say to him: the judge acts in his place, so seek his permission; if you do not, then you have no right to reimbursement. This view makes the matter more complicated, because when it is impossible to seek the owner’s permission—that is, the pledgor’s—he must go to court. The court will not readily grant his request; rather, it will require evidence that the property needs repair. If he brings such evidence, it will authorize him, but this may be difficult.

The correct view is that adopted by the author: he does not need the judge’s permission. If it is impossible to seek the permission of the pledgor, who is the owner, the pledgee may repair it and recover his expenses, whether or not he sought the judge’s permission. This is because the pledged property’s remaining in his possession with the pledgor’s permission entails responsibility for the maintenance it requires.

His statement, “The same applies to a deposited item”: if it requires repair and its owner is present, then we say: if the owner of the deposited item has authorized you to repair it, then repair it and seek reimbursement