or without need for it, or he leads them along a path where they are exposed to destruction, and similar actions that are considered negligence and transgression, and they perish as a result, he is liable for them; because they perished due to his aggression, so he is liable, like the one entrusted with a deposit (mustawda') if he transgresses. If they disagree regarding whether there was transgression or not, the word is the word of the shepherd, because he is a trustee. If he performed an act and they disagree on whether it was a transgression, it is referred back to the experts. If he brought the hide of a sheep and said, 'It died,' his statement is accepted, and he is not liable. It is narrated from Ahmad that he is liable and his statement is not accepted. The correct view is the first one; because the statements of trustees are accepted, like the one entrusted with a deposit, and because it is generally difficult for him to establish evidence, so he resembles the one entrusted with a deposit. Likewise, if he claimed its death without bringing its hide.

Section: The contract for herding is not valid except for a specified period; because the work is not limited. It is permissible to contract for the herding of specified livestock, or for a species as a liability. If he contracts for specified livestock, our companions mentioned that it relates to the entities themselves, as if he hired him to sew a specific garment, so it is not permissible to substitute it, and the contract becomes void upon its destruction. If some of it is destroyed, the hiring contract for that part becomes void, and he is entitled to the wage for what remains of it, proportionally. If it gives birth to offspring, he is not obligated to herd them; because it is an increase that the contract did not cover. It is possible that it does not relate to the entities themselves; because they are not what is contracted upon, rather he obtains the benefit through them, so it resembles one who hires a riding animal to ride; it is permissible for him to ride another in its place. If he hires a house to live in, it is permissible for him to live in a similar one, and if he hires land to plant wheat in, it is permissible for him to plant in it what is equivalent to it in harm, or less than it. The subject of the contract is merely the benefit of the shepherd, and for this reason, the wage is due to him if he offers himself even if he does not herd. It differs from the garment in sewing; because garments are prone to differences in the ease and hardship of sewing them, unlike