It has already been stated that the stronger view is that the borrower is like any other person who holds property with the owner’s permission or the permission of the Sacred Law: the borrower’s possession is one of trust. Accordingly, if it is destroyed while in the owner’s possession as a loan, liability rests with the usurper—unless the owner knows that it is his own property, in which case the usurper is absolved. But if he transgresses or is negligent, he is liable; otherwise, he is not.

“Whatever fungible usurped property is destroyed or becomes unavailable must be compensated with its equivalent at that time; otherwise, its value is due as of the day an equivalent becomes unavailable. Non-fungible property is compensated according to its value on the day it is destroyed. If juice ferments, then an equivalent is due. But if it turns into vinegar, he must hand it over together with the decrease in its value as juice …”

His statement, “Whatever fungible usurped property is destroyed or becomes unavailable must be compensated with its equivalent at that time,” means: at the time it is destroyed.

His statement, “Whatever is destroyed”: the word “whatever” may be taken as a relative pronoun, or as a conditional particle. The apparent meaning from the context is that it is conditional.

His statement, “becomes unavailable,” means that it becomes unavailable in such a way that it cannot be recovered; it is therefore as though it had been destroyed.

Usurped property is divided into two categories: fungible usurped property—that is, property for which an equivalent exists—and non-fungible usurped property.

Fungible usurped property is compensated with its equivalent, while non-fungible property is compensated according to its value. So let us consider: what is fungible property?

According to the established position of the school, the category of fungible property is very narrow. It includes every item sold by measure or weight that is eligible for a salam sale and does not involve permissible workmanship.

The stronger view, however, is that fungible property is anything that has an equivalent or a close counterpart, whether it is measured, weighed, manufactured, or unmanufactured. Thus, everything that has an equivalent or close counterpart is fungible.

The principle that fungible property is compensated with its equivalent is agreed upon. Accordingly, if someone breaks another person’s cup, must we require him to provide