did not enter into a contract with its owner, people would be reluctant to take the initiative in saving the property of those whose wealth is inviolable from destruction.

Second: if a person has made himself available for work, and someone comes to him, gives him a garment, and says, “Sew a garment for me,” then he may take payment, because he has made himself available for work. But if he has not made himself available for work, then he is entitled to nothing, since the garment was given to him on the assumption that he was acting voluntarily.

Thus, anyone who performs work for another without a contract is entitled to nothing, except in three cases:

First: saving the property of one whose wealth is inviolable from destruction.

Second: returning a runaway slave.

Third: when a person has made himself available for work.

Issue: If someone does something that benefits another person’s property and then requests payment for it, is the owner obliged to pay? No, because the owner may say: “I did not instruct you, neither explicitly nor implicitly.” Rather, the owner of the property may demand compensation from him and say: “Why are you disposing of my property?!”

His statement, “and he may also recover his expenses”: that is, the one who returns the runaway slave may recover his expenses, because supporting him is obligatory, as it preserves his life. The one who returns the runaway slave cannot refrain from spending on him, for if he were to refrain from doing so, the slave would perish. Therefore, he may recover his expenses.

Whose statement is accepted regarding the expenses?

If customary practice supports the statement of the one who returned the runaway slave, or that of his owner