“If she becomes pregnant, she is deemed to have reached puberty.” He did not say, “If she becomes pregnant, she has reached puberty.” Is she deemed to have reached puberty because of the pregnancy, or because of the ejaculation that preceded it?

The answer is the latter: because of the ejaculation that preceded it. Thus, if a woman gives birth at the age of twelve, having neither menstruated nor developed pubic hair, we say that she has reached puberty by the ejaculation preceding the pregnancy.

His statement, “The interdiction is not lifted until its conditions are met,” means that the legal interdiction over these three is not lifted until its conditions are met. What are the conditions in the case of a minor?

The answer is puberty and financial competence. In the case of the insane person, they are soundness of mind and financial competence; and in the case of the financially incompetent person, it is financial competence. Thus, all the conditions must be fulfilled. Once they have been fulfilled, the interdiction is lifted, and there is no need for a judge.

Financial competence is prudent management of wealth: that one engages in transactions repeatedly and is not generally cheated, that one does not spend one’s wealth on what is unlawful or on that which brings no benefit, and that one’s property is not handed over to one until one has been tested before reaching puberty in matters appropriate to one’s circumstances. Their guardian during the period of interdiction is the father, then the father’s appointed trustee, then the judge.

His statement, “Financial competence is prudent management of wealth”: as mentioned previously, financial competence in every context is according to what is appropriate to that context.

His statement, “prudent management of wealth,” means competence in financial matters, not in religious matters. Religious uprightness is therefore not a condition in this chapter, because the discussion here concerns the management of wealth. If someone is not upright in religious matters but is prudent with wealth, he is financially competent, and his property is to be handed over to him. The author explained this by saying:

“That one engages in transactions repeatedly and is not generally cheated.” The word “repeatedly” is plural, so two transactions do not suffice. If, whenever he buys or sells, he is cheated—for example, buying something worth ten for twenty, or selling something worth twenty for ten—then he is not financially competent. Likewise, if he gives things away gratuitously, he is financially incompetent.