His statement, “If he slaughters a ram therein, or tears a garment therein so that its value falls below the minimum threshold, then removes it, or destroys the property therein, his hand is not amputated,” means that the value which reaches the minimum threshold is required at the time of removal, not at the time of the theft. Thus, if a man enters a sheepfold intending to steal a sheep and says to himself, “If I take it out alive, it will reach the minimum threshold; but if I slaughter it, it will not reach the minimum threshold. So I will slaughter it and take it out slaughtered”—is he liable to amputation?

The answer is that he is not liable to amputation, because the value of the item fell before he removed it from its secure place. This is like a man entering a house containing property, destroying that property, and then leaving the house: his hand is not amputated, because he destroyed the value of the property while it was still in its owner’s possession. However, he is regarded as having destroyed the property and is therefore liable for the compensation that such liability entails.

Likewise, if a man enters a shop containing garments, breaches its security, and says, “If I take the garment out sewn and intact, its value will reach the minimum threshold, and my hand will be amputated for it; but if I tear it before taking it out, its value will decrease,” then he tears it and leaves wearing it, his hand is not amputated. This is because he destroyed the item before removing it. It is like eating food at its owner’s premises, burning a garment, or the like. He is liable only for compensation due for wrongful appropriation. This is therefore a stratagem by which amputation is waived, just as it is waived if he destroys the item outright. Since it is a stratagem, it would not be surprising if there is scholarly disagreement concerning it.

His statement, “or destroys the property therein,” means that he destroys the property in the very