What is the ruling when the owner claims a beast was usurped (ghasaba) while the rider claims it was loaned (a'artaniha), and the dispute occurs immediately after the contract with the beast intact?

Primary text

If the dispute between the owner claiming usufruct and the rider claiming loan occurs immediately following the contract, and the animal remains intact without damage, the dispute is meaningless. The owner takes back his animal. This ruling holds even if the animal is destroyed, because the compensation (value) is due from the borrower just as it is due from the usurper.