and those of moderate means have their own standard of maintenance. This has been customary since the world was created:

“A slave girl who has never eaten fine bread,
Nor tasted pistachios among vegetables”—

because she is poor; she eats nothing but broken, dry bread. Every situation has its fitting expression. Thus, what appears correct is that he should be given maintenance according to what is fair; and if he has no wealth, he should be given the maintenance of a poor person.

“The statement of the guardian and the judge is accepted, after the lifting of the legal restriction, regarding expenditure, necessity, advantage, loss, and the handing over of property. Whatever a slave borrows is binding upon his master if he permits him; otherwise, it is owed against the slave himself, as is the case with property entrusted to him, compensation for his wrongdoing, and the value of what he destroys.”

His statement, “The statement of the guardian and the judge is accepted, after the lifting of the legal restriction, regarding expenditure, necessity, advantage, loss, and the handing over of property”: these are several issues.

First: the guardian’s statement is accepted because he is entrusted with responsibility, and the judge’s statement is also accepted. However, they distinguished between accepting the statement of the guardian and that of the judge: the guardian’s statement is accepted with an oath, whereas the judge’s statement is accepted without an oath. This is because the judge speaks by virtue of his authority, so his statement is like a judicial ruling and does not require an oath. As for the guardian, his statement is not accepted on the basis that he holds authority, but rather as the claim of a claimant. A condition for accepting the guardian’s statement is that it must not contradict what is customary; if it does contradict customary practice, then it is not accepted except with evidence.

His statement, “after the lifting of the legal restriction,” is because, before the restriction is lifted, no one will dispute with him. But after it is lifted, the person formerly under restriction will dispute with him.

Thus, the guardian’s statement is accepted with his oath, while the judge’s statement is accepted without an oath, in the following matters:

First: “regarding expenditure”—both its amount and its basis. Thus, once the legal restriction has been lifted, if the person formerly under restriction says, “My wealth was ten thousand, but now there is only eight thousand. Where is the remainder?” and the guardian says, “I spent it on you,” and his claim is plausible that he