We say: but he has no right to dispose of the specific property of another except with that person’s permission, and he was not given such permission.

Suppose that this box were to burn, destroying the money inside it, including the ten thousand, after he had used it and returned it: he would be liable for it, because by using it he ceased to be a trustee. But if he had left it untouched and had not used it, and then the box burned, he would not be liable, because he is a trustee. Pay careful attention to these principles, for they are very beneficial.

The author’s statement, “An agent is a trustee,” is followed by an explanation of the ruling that results from his being a trustee:

“He is not liable for anything that perishes while in his possession,” meaning, from the property entrusted to him.

His statement, “without negligence,” means: and without transgression. The author did not mention transgression because, if he is liable in the case of negligence, then his liability in the case of transgression is all the more evident. Nevertheless, it would have been preferable to mention it. Thus, the condition for non-liability is that he neither be negligent nor transgress.

The difference between negligence and transgression is this: transgression is to do what is not permissible, whereas negligence is to omit what is obligatory.

Thus, failing to do something required is called negligence, while doing something one is required to refrain from is called transgression.

In the earlier example concerning a deposit, if he takes the dirhams deposited with him and uses them, this is transgression. If, however, he places the dirhams on top of the box, becomes inattentive, and they are then stolen, this is negligence, because he omitted what was required of him: namely, to safeguard them at once in the manner in which such property is customarily kept.