the watch belonged to the usurper and it was destroyed while in the custodian’s possession, without any transgression or negligence on his part, the usurper would have no right of recourse against him, because the custodian acted properly, and “there is no blame upon those who do good.”
His statement: “If he feeds it to its owner, pledges it to him, deposits it with him, or leases it to him, he is not absolved unless the owner knows.” An example of this is a man who usurps some food, such as bread, rice, or the like, then feeds it to its owner. The owner eats it believing it to be the usurper’s property. In this case, we say that the usurper is not absolved unless he informs him, saying: “I usurped this property from you, and now I have repented, so please eat it.” If he eats it, the usurper is absolved, because he knew.
Likewise, if he pledges it to him—for example, if he borrows a debt from the owner and gives him the usurped property as collateral—he is not absolved, because the pledgee accepts it on the understanding that he bears no liability. His possession is one of trust; thus, if it is destroyed without transgression or negligence, he is not liable. But if its owner knows that it is his property, the usurper is absolved, because he has now enabled him to take possession of it and given him control over it.
His statement: “or deposits it with him,” means that he deposits the usurped property “with him,” that is, with its owner. “He is not absolved unless the owner knows.” A deposit for safekeeping means entrusting someone with safeguarding something: that is, you give a person property to keep for you. People call this an “entrusted item,” though in reality it is a deposit for safekeeping. If he deposits it with him, it is known that the custodian is not liable unless he transgresses or is negligent. If the usurper informs him that it is his property, he is absolved of liability, whether it is destroyed or not, because if it is destroyed, it is in the possession of its owner. But if the usurper deposits the usurped property with its owner and the owner does not know, liability remains upon the usurper, even if it is destroyed while in the custodian’s possession without