to perform the kinds of tasks customarily expected of him, saying, “So-and-so, bring breakfast,” or, “Bring fodder for the animal,” or, “Take the children to school,” and the like. This is valid. But if he were to say one day, “Carry me on your back to the market,” the servant has the right to refuse, because this is not something customarily expected of him unless it was stipulated.

Likewise, some people hire a servant to stay in the house, attend to needs, drive the car, and so on, then employ him to herd camels. This is not permissible unless they hired him for that purpose. If one wishes to transfer him from more onerous work to lighter work, this is not permissible without his consent, because he is a free person hired for a specific task; he may not be assigned work beyond that specified task unless he agrees. In my view, if he is transferred from harder work to easier work, he will agree. Thus, if he is transferred from herding camels in the open wilderness and desert, and the like, to staying in the house under ample shade, eating and drinking with the people of the household, the latter is better for him, and he will choose it. But if there is no established custom defining the service, and he was hired for a particular task, he may not be transferred to another task except with his consent.

If a person hires someone for his own service, may he hire him out to another person for that person’s service? He may not, because he does not own him; rather, he owns only his benefit for himself, and he cannot transfer it to someone else unless the worker agrees. If he agrees, there is nothing wrong with it. This applies to what some people do nowadays: they bring servants from abroad after agreeing with them upon a particular type of work, then another person hires the servant from the man who brought him. We say: if the hired worker agrees, there is nothing wrong with it. The difference between