Bava Kamma

but subsequently it is written: Behold I send an angel before thee to keep thee by the way. Raba [again] said to Rabbah b. Mari: Whence can be derived the popular saying: 'Behind an owner of wealth chips are dragged along'? — He replied: As it is written: And Lot also who went with Abram had flocks and herds and tents. R. Hanan said: He who invokes the judgment of Heaven against his fellow is himself punished first, as it says, And Sarai said unto Abram, My wrong be upon thee  etc., and it is subsequently written, And Abraham came to mourn for Sarah, and to weep for her.  This, however, is the case only where justice could be obtained in a temporal Court of Law. R. Isaac said: Woe to him who cries [for divine intervention] even more than to him against whom it is invoked! It was taught likewise: Both the one who cries for divine intervention and the one against whom it is invoked come under the Scriptural threat,  but punishment is meted out first to the one who cries, [and is] more severe than for the one against whom justice is invoked.  R. Isaac again said: The curse of an ordinary man should never be considered a trifling matter in your eyes,  for when Abimelech called a curse upon Sarah it was fulfilled in her seed, as it says, Behold it is for thee a covering of the eyes,  [which implies that] he said to her, 'Since thou hast covered the truth from me and not disclosed that he was thy husband, and hast thus caused me all this trouble, let it be the will [of Heaven] that there shall be to thee a covering of the eyes,'  and this was actually fulfilled in her seed, as it is written: And it came to pass that when Isaac was old and his eyes were dim so that he could not see.  R. Abbahu said: A man should always strive to be rather of the persecuted than of the persecutors as there is none among the birds more persecuted than doves and pigeons, and yet Scripture made them [alone]  eligible for the altar. IF THE PLAINTIFF SAID: PUT OUT MY EYE … ON THE UNDERSTANDING THAT HE WOULD BE EXEMPT, HE WOULD STILL BE LIABLE. IF THE PLAINTIFF SAID: TEAR MY GARMENT ON THE UNDERSTANDING THAT YOU WILL BE EXEMPT HE WOULD BE EXEMPT. R. Assi b. Hama  said to Rabbah:  Why is the rule differing in the former case and in the latter case? — He replied: [There is liability in] the former case because no man truly pardons the wounding of his principal limbs. The others rejoined: Does a man then pardon the inflicting of pain, seeing that it was taught: 'If the plaintiff had said, "Smite me and wound me on the understanding that you will be exempt," the defendant would be exempt.' He had no answer and said: Have you heard anything on this matter? — He  thereupon said to him: This is what R. Shesheth has said: The liability is because [the plaintiff had no right to pardon] the discredit to the family. It was similarly stated: R. Oshaia said: Because of the discredit to the family, whereas Raba said: Because no man could truly pardon the injury done to his principal limbs. R. Johanan, however, said: Sometimes the term 'Yes' means 'No'  and the term 'No' means 'Yes' [as when spoken ironically].  It was also taught likewise: If the plaintiff said, 'Smite me and wound me,' and when the defendant interposed, 'On the understanding of being exempt, the plaintiff replied, 'Yes,' there may be a 'Yes' which implies 'No' [i.e., when spoken ironically]. If the plaintiff said, 'Tear my garment,' and when the defendant interposed, 'On the Understanding of being exempt, he said to him, 'No', there may be a 'No' which means 'Yes' [such as when spoken ironically]. IF THE DEFENDANT SAID: BREAK MY PITCHER AND TEAR MY GARMENT, THE DEFENDANT WOULD STILL BE LIABLE. A contradiction was pouched out: "'To keep"18 but not to destroy; "to keep", but not to tear; "to keep" but not to distribute to the poor,' [in which case the liability of bailees would not apply. Why then liability in the Mishnah]?  — Said R. Huna: There is no difficulty, as here  the article came into his hands,  whereas there  the article did not come into his hands.  Said Rabbah to him: Does the expression 'To keep'  not imply that the article has come into his hands? — Rabbah therefore said: This case as well as the other is one in which the article has come into his hands, and still there is no difficulty, as in the case here  the article originally came into his hands  for the purpose of being guarded, whereas there  it came to his hands for the purpose of being torn. A purse of money for charity having been brought to Pumbeditha, R. Joseph deposited it with a certain person who, however, was so negligent that thieves came and stole it. R. Joseph declared liability [to pay], but Abaye said to him: Was it not taught: 'To keep'  but not to distribute to the poor? — R. Joseph rejoined: The poor of Pumbeditha have a fixed allowance,  and the charity money could thus be considered as having been deposited 'to keep' [and not to distribute it to the poor].