only in its market value, he must pay the arsh. If both the substance and the value have diminished, he is liable for what has disappeared and must return what remains together with compensation for its deficiency, provided the drop in value is greater. The sounder view is that later fattening does not offset earlier emaciation. If the slave recalls a craft he had forgotten, that cures the loss caused by the lapse; but learning a new craft never compensates for forgetting another—definitively.

If someone usurps grape must that ferments into wine and then turns into vinegar, the stronger opinion is that the vinegar belongs to the owner, and the usurper owes arsh if the vinegar is worth less. Likewise, if he usurps wine that later becomes vinegar, or the hide of a carcass which he tans, the vinegar and the tanned hide belong to the person from whom they were taken.

Section

Additions to the usurped item are treated as follows:
• If the addition is a mere enhancement, such as fulling a garment, the usurper gains nothing thereby. The owner may compel him to restore it to its former state, if possible, and to pay the arsh for any deficiency.
• If the addition is a separate tangible entity—such as a building or planted trees—he is required to remove it.
• If he dyes a garment with his own dye and the color can be separated, he is forced to do so according to the sounder view. If separation is impossible and the value has not increased, the usurper is entitled to nothing; if the value has fallen, he must pay the arsh; and if it has risen, they share the increase.

If he mixes the usurped item with something else and they can be distinguished—even with difficulty—he must separate them. If separation is impossible, the preferred opinion treats the item as destroyed: the owner may claim its value, and the usurper may instead give him an equivalent portion from unmixed goods.

If he seizes a beam and builds upon it, it must be removed; the same applies if he inserts it into a ship, unless removing it would endanger a life or protected property.

If the usurper knowingly has intercourse with a female slave he has seized, he is subject to the hadd (prescribed punishment); if he was unaware, no hadd is due. In either case the mahr (dower) is obligatory, unless she willingly consented, in which case—according to the correct view—it is not owed. She is subject to the hadd if she knew.

Intercourse by one who bought her from the usurper carries the same rulings concerning hadd and mahr; and if the buyer is made to pay the mahr, he may not, on the sounder view, seek reimbursement from the usurper.

If the usurper impregnates her while aware of the prohibition, the child is a slave with no recognized lineage; but if he was ignorant, the child is free and enjoys legitimate lineage.