Considering that the wording coming from the law is possible, we rule by its apparent meaning and we are not certain that that is what is intended. If we happen to find another text in that ruling that removes the possibility given by that other wording, that first wording is purified of that possibility, and he has this second predicate, like the tanner for this. So we combined the purity of the skin in and of itself, which is that it was transformed by the second predicate into one of its conclusive possibilities, and we benefited from it just as we had benefited 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, for that predicate may have diverted it from the apparent meaning that we were using. There is another matter in it that is possible, which is why we said in terms of what is beneficial from it, not in terms of what is beneficial from it in a specific way, since others do not see benefit from it at a