he takes control of an adult, he is not liable for him, because an adult is able to defend himself and escape.

His statement, “But if he compels him to work or detains him, then he owes him his wage,” means that if he forces him to serve him, or forces him to remain in the shop, then he owes him his wage, because he has wrongfully and unlawfully deprived him of his benefit.

If someone were to ask: Can a person take control of a free person without putting him to work?

We say: Yes, this is possible. He may take control of free persons so that, when guests come to him, they find these people with him, imagining them to be his slaves or even his children—for a person takes pride in having children. Yet he does not put them to work; rather, he treats them generously. He merely wants to appear before his guests as someone who has children or servants. In such a case, he is not liable for them, because he did not put them to work; rather, he treated them generously.

But if he puts him to work, such as by saying to him, for example, “Take the staff, go to the livestock, and tend them as a shepherd,” or, “Take the plough and go to the land and cultivate it,” or, “Take the registers and record what comes in and what goes out,” then the author says that he owes him his wage.

But if he puts him to work willingly, then no wage is due. The apparent meaning of the author’s words is that this applies whether the free person is a child or an adult, where he works willingly. This is sound with respect to an adult, but with respect to a child it requires further consideration, because a child may obey without understanding such matters. How then can we say that no liability is incurred, when his action is not deemed legally valid in the first place? It should therefore be said: if he puts him to work willingly, then if he is an adult, no wage is due; but if he is a child, he is entitled to a wage.

His statement, “or detains him,” means that if he detains him, he owes him his wage. The apparent meaning of his words is