Section: If a common hired worker (ajir mushtarak) hires a private hired worker (ajir khas)—such as a tailor in a shop who hires an employee for a period of time to work for him, and the shop owner agrees to undertake the sewing of a garment and hands it over to his employee, who then tears it or ruins it—he is not liable for it; because he is a private hired worker. However, the shop owner is liable for it; because he is a common hired worker.

Section: If the craftsman ruins the garment after finishing his work, its owner has the choice between holding him liable for it while it is unworked and granting him no wage, or holding him liable for it as worked and paying him his wage. If the liability for the transported goods becomes incumbent upon him, its owner has the choice between holding him liable for its value in the place where he delivered it to him and granting him no wage, or holding him liable for it in the place where he ruined it and giving him the wage for the journey to that place. This is only the case because if he prefers to hold him liable for it as worked, or in the place where he ruined it, he has the right to do so; for he owned it in that place and in that form, so he gained the right to claim its compensation at that time. If he prefers to hold him liable for it prior to that, it is because the wage for the work does not become binding upon him before he hands it over to him, and what has not been handed over to him, he is not obligated to pay for.

Section: If he hands over yarn to a weaver and says, "Weave me ten cubits in length by one cubit in width," and he weaves it in excess of what he specified for him in length and width, he has no wage for the excess; because it was not ordered. Furthermore, he is liable for the shortage of the yarn woven into it. As for that which is not the excess, it is examined: if he produced it with an excess in length alone, and the original [amount of yarn] was not reduced by the excess, he is entitled to the wage he named for him, just as if he had hired him to mold one hundred bricks for him and he molded two hundred. If he produced it with an excess in width alone, or in both, there are two views: One is that he has no wage; because he violated the command of the hirer, so he does not deserve anything, just as if he had hired him to build a wall one cubit wide and he built it two cubits wide. The second is that he is entitled to the named amount; because he added to what he was ordered, so it resembles the excess in length. He who holds the first view differentiates between length and width by the fact that it is possible to cut off the excess in length, and the garment remains as he desired, while that is not possible in width.