Translation:Shulchan Aruch/Choshen Mishpat/306
Paragraph 1- All craftsmen are paid watchmen. In all cases if they told the owner to come take back what is his and bring money or if he said he finished working on it and the owner did not yet take the vessel, the craftsman is an unpaid watchman. If the craftsman said bring the money and take what is yours, however, he is still a paid watchmen as he was originally. If the craftsman said take what is yours and I am not guarding it any further, he would be exempt.
Paragraph 2- If one gave an item to a craftsman to repair, and the craftsman damaged it, he would be required to pay. How so? If one gave a chest, box or cabinet to a carpenter for him to put in a nail, and the item broke, or if he gave wood to create a chest, box or cabinet and the item broke after it was made, the craftsman must pay for the value of the chest, box or cabinet because a craftsman does not acquire the appreciation of the vessel. See Even Haezer 28:16. If a builder contracted to destroy a wall and he broke or damaged the stones, he would be required to pay. If he destroyed on this side and it fell from another side, he would be exempt. If it fell because of the blow, he would be liable.
Paragraph 3- If one gave wool to a dyer and he burnt it in the pot, the dyer must pay the value of the wool. If he dyed it in a manner that was disgusting or if the owner gave it to him to dye red and he died it black, or to dye black and he dyed it red, or if an owner gave wood to a carpenter to make a nice chair and he made a bad chair or bench, and the appreciation was more than the cost of expenses, the owner of the vessel would pay the expenses. If the expenses were more than the appreciation, he would only give the appreciation. That which it could have appreciated had the craftsman not deviated is not included in the principle. We calculate the appreciation and the expense without this. If the owner of the vessel said he does not want this arrangement, but that the craftsman should give him the value of the wool or wood, we would not listen to him. Similarly, if the craftsman offers to pay the value of the wool or wood and absolve himself, we would not listen to him, because a craftsman does not acquire the appreciation of the vessel he worked on.
Paragraph 4- If one brings wheat to a craftsman to grind and the craftsman did not wet them and he made brand or coarse bran, he gave flour to a baker and he made under-baked bread, or an animal to a butcher for payment and he slaughtered improperly, he would be required to pay for their value. If he slaughtered at no cost and he was an expert butcher, he would be exempt. If he is not an expert, he would be liable. Butchers who take intestines from the kosher animals are considered paid and if they slaughtered improperly they would be required to pay.
Paragraph 5- When is this true? Where the slaughter was definitely invalid. If he made the animal a trefiah that would disqualify the animal out of doubt, such as where he delayed on a minority of the slaughtered parts of the animal, he would be exempt. Similarly, if he found a blemish on the knife and he had checked it originally, because we can say the shoulder bone blemished the knife, when it comes to money we would not remove money out of doubt. Although we have the custom to prohibit it, he would still be monetarily exempt. This seems correct to me, even though there are those who disagree. Nevertheless, he will have forfeited his payment because he may have slaughtered with a blemished knife.
Paragraph 6- If one shows a dinar to a moneychanger, who tells him it is good, and it turns out it was bad, and the moneychanger was paid for his services, he would be required to pay, even if he is an expert and does not need to learn. If he saw it for free, he would be exempt if he was an expert who did not need to learn. If he is not an expert, he would be required to pay, even if he was unpaid. This assumes the owner told the moneychanger he is relying on him or the circumstances indicate that he is relying on what the moneychanger observes and will not show it to anyone else. There are those who say the moneychanger is even liable in a standard case, but the first view is the primary one.
Paragraph 7- If a butcher worked for no cost- and the same in the case of a moneychanger that said the money is good and it was discovered to be bad or anything similar- he has the burden of proof to show he is an expert. If they do not bring proof, they must pay.
Paragraph 8- If one plants trees for the public that get ruined- there are those who say the same applies if he planted for an individual- or similarly if the city butcher improperly slaughtered, the blood-letter bruised, the scribe erred in drafting documents or the schoolteacher was negligent with the children and did not teach, even if it was just for a day or two, or erred in his teaching or anything similar, or craftsmen who created a loss that cannot be reverted, we may remove them without any warning because they are considered already warned until they perform their work given that the public appointed them. There are those who say that although no warning is required we would need a pattern because unless there is a pattern or they are warned we would not remove them. If one gives money to another to write a Torah scroll for him and an error was discovered and he needs to hire someone to edit it and it is an error that scribes have the practice to make, the scribe is not liable for anything. If he made such an error that scribes would not generally make, however, he would be liable. We would, however, follow the custom. If the locale’s custom was that the scribes that write must edit, he too must edit. In a typical place where the scribe does not have the burden of editing and he went ahead and edited on his own, the owners would be required to pay him.