Or if he prays in a garment that is unlawful for him to wear . . .

His statement, “Or if he prays in a garment that is unlawful for him to wear,” means that his prayer is not valid. This is because it has preceded that one condition of the covering garment is that it be permissible. (1) Thus, if he prays in a garment prohibited to him—whether due to the manner in which it was acquired, the garment itself, its particular attribute, or because its specified price was unlawful—then his prayer is not valid . . .

An example of what is prohibited due to the manner in which it was acquired is a garment that has been usurped, stolen, or the like.

An example of what is prohibited in itself is silk worn by a man, or a garment containing images, whether worn by a man or a woman, since it is unlawful for both men and women to wear garments containing images.

An example of what is prohibited due to its attribute is a man praying in a woman’s garment, or vice versa.

An example of what is prohibited because its specified price was unlawful is where someone buys a garment with money that he stole. This requires further detail: if the contract was concluded with reference to the specific money, then prayer in the garment is not valid; but if the contract was not concluded with reference to the specific money—that is, it was a debt owed by the buyer—then prayer in it is valid. This illustrates the precision of the jurists. If you go to the owner of a garment and say, “Sell me this garment for this money”—meaning the stolen money—and he sells it to you, then prayer in it is not valid, because the contract is invalid, having been concluded with reference to the specific unlawful, stolen currency. But if you say, “Sell me this garment for ten,” and he sells it to you, and you pay the price with stolen money, then the contract is valid, even though