Can the owner of the garment compel the usurper to remove the dye?

Primary text

There are two differing views on whether the garment owner can force the removal of the dye. One view states that the owner can compel the removal, similar to compelling the removal of trees from one's land, because the usurper has occupied the owner's property with his own property in a way that permits separation. The usurper is then liable for the garment's diminished value and the cost of removal, even if the usurper incurs loss. The second view states that compulsion is not possible because the dye is destroyed upon extraction, and since the rightful owner's right could be secured without removal (by sale), forced removal is not incumbent, similar to uprooting crops.