the usurper is liable for the rent. Thus, if we assume that the house could be leased for twelve thousand, the usurper is liable for twelve thousand, because the first contract is invalid and the owner of the house must be compensated according to the customary rental rate. Had we said that it was valid, he would have been liable for only ten thousand. As for the tenant who rented it for ten thousand when the house is worth twelve thousand, is he liable for twelve thousand or for ten thousand? There is some detail: if he knew that it was usurped property, we hold him liable for twelve thousand; but if he did not know, we hold him liable for only ten thousand.

It is understood from his saying, “legally consequential,” that transactions which are not legally consequential are not described as valid or invalid. Thus, if someone usurps water and removes impurity with it, do we say that the removal is invalid? The answer is no, because the removal of impurity is not described as valid or invalid. Accordingly, if he usurps water and removes impurity from his garment with it, the garment becomes pure, because the removal of impurity is not subject to a ruling of validity or invalidity.

If he usurps water and performs ablution with it, is his ablution valid? We consider whether ablution may be divided into invalid and valid. The answer is yes; therefore, his ablution with usurped water is invalid, because it is a legally consequential transaction—that is, one to which validity and invalidity may apply.

Another example: a man usurps a garment and sells it. The ruling concerning the sale is that it is invalid, because it is among the legally consequential transactions to which validity and invalidity apply.

The apparent meaning of the author’s words is that, if the usurper slaughtered the sheep that he had usurped, it would become unlawful to eat, because ritual slaughter may be valid or invalid; thus, the usurper’s slaughter does not render the slaughtered animal lawful.