another point: there is a difference between the husband’s property being within the home itself and its being in a shop or the like. If it is in the home, this entails a degree of trust placed in the wife; but if it is outside, she is no different from anyone else. Thus, I do not see any element of doubt in such a case, provided that he has fulfilled his obligations and has not been negligent in her maintenance.

As for the husband’s theft from his wife’s property, they say that the element of doubt arises because the husband is the caretaker of the woman and has authority over her. He may therefore suppose, on account of this authority, that he has the right to seize some of her property and take from it. Or it may be because a husband generally deals freely with his wife’s property, just as she deals freely with his. If the property has not been secured from him, this reasoning has some basis. But if it has been secured from him, and the woman has taken precautions—placing her property in locked chests out of fear of her husband—then is he subject to amputation or not?

The author says, “even if it has been secured from him.” Thus, according to the author’s view, he is not subject to amputation. The correct view, however, is that a husband’s theft of his wife’s secured property entails amputation.

But can the wife demand that her husband’s hand be amputated if he steals her property? The answer is: if their relationship is good, then no. But if matters between them are not good, she may demand that his hand be amputated.

His statement, “even if it has been secured from him,” indicates a difference of opinion. For scholars commonly use such wording to indicate disagreement on an issue. Indeed, some of them—though this is not a consistent rule—have said that when they use the phrase “even if,” the disagreement is strong; when they say “and if,” the disagreement is moderate; and when