The second is to lease it—not on the basis of a generically described obligation—and use the rent collected to rebuild it, so that the tenant receives the use corresponding to the rent paid.

These are two methods available to people when an endowment falls into ruin. Sometimes they lease the land, which remains under a ground lease. At other times, they obtain rent in advance to finance rebuilding; this rent is lower than it would have been had it not been paid in advance. This is possible with most endowments that fall into ruin. Nevertheless, they have permitted selling the property and purchasing a replacement with its proceeds because this better serves the endowment’s beneficiaries—not because of necessity or because all benefit has ceased. Such a property would scarcely be useful, and no one buys something that cannot be used. Yet it may be difficult for no tenant to be available while a purchaser is found. However, permission to sell an endowment when it falls into ruin is not conditional upon there being no tenant. Rather, it may be sold and replaced when that is more beneficial than leasing it, since bare land yields little rent.

Likewise, when rent is obtained in advance to finance rebuilding, the benefit diminishes. The beneficiaries receive no benefit from it during the period in which the tenant receives the use corresponding to the amount spent on rebuilding; they benefit only afterwards. Moreover, the rent paid in advance is low, so the endowment’s benefit is diminished in this case.

It is thus clear that what justifies selling and replacing the endowment is its diminished benefit, because the replacement is better and more beneficial. The justification is not the complete cessation of benefit. Even if complete cessation were assumed, let that be counted among the necessities that permit forbidden things. Whatever is permitted out of need rather than necessity—such as women adorning themselves with gold and silk, or medical treatment using gold and silk—has been permitted only to secure full