The clear one that cannot be interpreted would be if you associated it with it in the same way as a dead animal from a living animal. When we did not find anything from the law preventing us from making use of it, we remained on the original, which is the Almighty’s saying: “He created for you all that is on the earth, and He did not separate the clean from the unclean, so we do not judge it to be pure, and if we benefit from it, not if it is tanned, it is when it is tanned.” That is pure
[ The probable wording is judged by its apparent meaning and is not decisive with it ]
Considering that the wording received is from the probable law, we rule by its apparent meaning and are not certain of it if That is what is meant, so if it happens that we find another text in that ruling that removes the possibility given by that other word, that first word is purified of that possibility and it has this second predicate like the tanning of this leather, so we combined the purity for it in itself, which is its conversion by the second predicate into one of its definite possibilities. We benefited from it just as we used to benefit from it before it was pure, in terms of our benefiting from it, not in terms of our benefiting from it in a specific way, because that news may have diverted it from the apparent meaning in which we were using it to something else of its potential, so that is why we said in terms of what is benefited by it, not in terms of what it is.