Translation:Shulchan Aruch/Choshen Mishpat/304

Paragraph 1- If one transports a barrel from one location to another for payment, and the barrel broke, biblical law requires him to pay because this is not such an unavoidable accident, and breaking has the status of theft and misplacement, which he is liable for. The Rabbis instituted, however, that he would be required to swear that he was not negligent because if you were to require him to pay, nobody would transport barrels for another. Thus, they made the breaking of a barrel like the death and breaking of an animal.

Paragraph 2- In the same vein, the Rabbis also instituted that if two individuals were carrying a load on a pole and it broke, they would pay half because the load is heavy for one person and light for two, so it is like an unavoidable accident, yet not a true unavoidable accident, and thus they pay half if there are no witnesses saying they were negligent.

Paragraph 3- If the item broke in an area where witnesses are uncommon, the watchmen would swear it did not break negligently and would pay half the value, because each one should not have carried something they could not carry by themselves.

Paragraph 4- From this one can deduce that if one transported a large barrel that not all transporters would transport solo, he is considered negligent and if the barrel broke in his hand he would pay for the entire amount. ''All of the foregoing is the language of the Rambam. Many disagree, however, and hold that anything which is light for two people is not considered completely negligent, even if it is heavy for one and he would only pay half.''

Paragraph 5- If a transporter broke a storekeeper’s barrel of wine and was required to pay, and the barrel is worth 4 on a market day and worth 3 on other days and the watchman returned it on a market day, he must return a barrel of wine or pay the 4. This assumes the storekeeper did not have wine to sell on the market day. If he had wine, however, he would return 3 to him. If the watchman returned on another day, he would return 3. At all times the watchman can deduct the amount of time the storekeeper would have had to spend to make an effort to sell and to create the hole he would need to make in the barrel. The same applies to anything similar. ''This too is the language and opinion of the Rambam. Most commentators disagree, however, and hold the reverse. If he broke on any other day, the watchman would pay 3. If he broke on a market day and he wants to payback on other days, he must pay 4 and cannot exempt himself by giving him a different barrel of wine. If he comes to pay on a market day he can return another barrel of wine, assuming the storekeeper does not have another barrel to sell in the market. If the storekeeper has another barrel, however, it has the status of other days and the watchman must pay the value of the wine.''

Paragraph 6- Once the time-period of a paid watchman’s engagement has concluded, his engagement is over and he would only be an unpaid watchman, even if the item was still in his home.