its depreciation”—that is, the depreciation of the usurped property in all cases. Thus, if he usurps ink and uses it until its quantity decreases, he must compensate for the decrease.

His statement, “He is liable for its depreciation”: this applies even when the depreciation was not caused by his own action. For example, a man usurps a young slave and keeps him for ten years; his beard grows and the freshness of his youth fades, causing his value to decline. We say: You must return him and compensate for the decrease in his value, even though it was not caused by your action, because the depreciation occurred while he was under your control. Had he died, the usurper would have been liable for him. Thus, every depreciation that occurs while the usurped property is in the usurper’s possession is his liability, whether it was caused by him or not.

If he castrates the slave, he must return him together with his full value. Any loss due to a fall in market price is not guaranteed, nor is loss due to an illness from which he recovers.

His statement, “If he castrates the slave, he must return him together with his full value”: an example is a man who usurps a slave and castrates him in order to increase his value. A castrated slave was more valuable, because he posed less of a threat to women than an intact male. The author says, “He must return him together with his full value”—that is, he must return him at his value as a castrated slave, because this castration increased his value, yet it was the act of a wrongdoer, who has no right to benefit from it. The principle is that any increase belongs to the owner, while any decrease is borne by the usurper.

For example, he usurps an intact male slave worth ten thousand, then castrates him, so that he becomes worth twenty thousand. He must return him and pay an additional ten thousand, because he destroyed in him something for which the full blood-money is due in the case of a free person. If he were to castrate a free person, he would owe the full blood-money; and the blood-money of a slave is his value. Thus, concerning the man who castrated the slave, we say: You owe his value, because you destroyed in him something for which the full blood-money is due in the case of a free person. Whatever entails the full blood-money for a free person entails the slave’s full value. Consequently, this usurper has increased the slave-owner’s entitlement by being liable for the slave’s value, while the slave’s own value has also increased through castration. Yet he must return the slave as well, because the slave is not his property.