His statement: “Such as when he accepts a deposit, the compensation for his offense, and the value of what he destroys.” These are three cases:

The first is: “when he accepts a deposit”—that is, he receives something in trust and then destroys it, so liability attaches to his person.

The second is: “the compensation for his offense”—that is, the monetary compensation for an offense. If he commits an offense against someone, his master is given the choice mentioned above.

The third is: “the value of what he destroys”—that is, the value of whatever he destroys; liability attaches to his person. Thus, we now have four cases: if he incurs a debt without his master’s permission, accepts a deposit, commits an offense, or destroys something. In all these cases, liability attaches to his person. Whenever liability attaches to his person, his master is given a choice between three options:

First: to hand him over to the claimant and say, “He is yours in settlement of your debt, compensation for the offense, or the value of what he destroyed.”

Second: to sell him and give the claimant the slave’s value.

Third: to ransom him, while keeping the slave in his possession.