prohibition. But when we consider the meaning, we conclude that it indicates prohibition, because of the Prophet’s saying, “There should be neither harm nor reciprocal harm” (1), and because of the hadith concerning the woman who was punished on account of a cat: she neither fed it nor released it to eat from the vermin of the earth (2). Better still is what many people do: they first begin by nursing the young, then take the milk, leaving for themselves only what exceeds the needs of her young.

His statement, “If he is unable to provide for her, he is compelled to sell her, lease her out, or slaughter her if she is edible,” means that if, due to his poverty, he is unable to provide for her, it is not possible for us to leave this animal with him to suffer. Rather, he is compelled to do one of these things. The one responsible for compelling him is the ruler or judge. In our present legal custom, however, the judge has no authority beyond issuing the ruling; the person entrusted with enforcement is the one who carries it out.

His statement, “to sell her,” is subject to the condition that he sell her to someone whom he most likely believes will fulfill the duty of providing for her. But if he sells her to someone poorer than himself, the matter is not resolved by this sale; likewise, if he sells her to someone known for mistreating animals and failing to provide for them, then there is no benefit in such a sale.

His statement, “or lease her out,” is because the lessee may perhaps provide for her. But if the lessee says, “I bear no responsibility for her maintenance; I will give you the rent,” while the owner takes the rent and does not provide for her, then there is no benefit in the lease. In that case, the judge intervenes and deducts from the rent an amount sufficient to fulfill the required obligation.

His statement, “or slaughter her if she is edible,” means that if it is permissible to eat her, then he