Considering and explaining the substitute (hilulah) as a remedy for a disruption to the relationship between the owner and the property

If returning a usurped and guaranteed property is impossible and difficult, the majority of the jurisprudents consider the guarantor as a responsible for paying the alternative of the property, and have called it as "substituted property". Its impact is to eliminate the disruption that an usurper has created it in the relationship between the owner and the property. This claim is proven and validated with help of many reasons. But every evidence alone cannot completely include all the examples of a difficulty. Branches of a substitute such as the ownership of a substituted property and its alternative, and their interests are connected and depended on the implication and the provability of the accepted reason. The contracting parties` intention and will which can arise from acceptance of common sense reason remains neglected. Without interference of the parties` intention and will, the permanent precepts as to the substitute property can hardly found. With the interference of the common sense, the intention and will of the two parties find their place. An explanatory reporting as to the standards and criteria of the ordinance, the assessment of the evidence, their formulation, the nature of substitute, especially the ownership which seems as a problem, and also the examination of the various ideas presented to solve it, is a glimpse of the walked way.