at times, when the ruler is strong, a valuable item may be left on the pavements and no one will approach it. But when he is weak, doors are broken down and property is stolen.

His statement: “The secure custody of money, jewels, and cloth is in houses, shops, and inhabited places, behind sturdy doors and locks.” “Money” means currency, and “jewels” include pearls and the like; cloth likewise refers to garments. These three types of property are kept in houses, shops, and inhabited places. One cannot leave such property out in the open countryside, even if it is in chests. If a man takes his money out into the countryside and places it in a chest, this does not constitute secure custody, because no one is around it; a thief may take the chest and all that it contains.

Moreover, it must be behind sturdy doors and locks. It is not sufficient for it merely to be in houses, shops, or inhabited places; they must have doors and sturdy locks. I believe that these three matters differ: even if they are in shops behind locked doors, the secure custody appropriate to gold or currency, for example, is not the same as that appropriate to cloth. Thus, if a man breaks into a shop, breaks down its door, and steals cloth, his hand is amputated. But if he steals coins that were not kept in chests, his hand is not amputated. Thus, the hand is amputated for stealing garments but not for stealing coins, because it is customary that coins are not left in this manner on a table in a shop.

A distinction may be drawn between a large amount of coins and a small amount: a large amount is not