Bava Metzia

we have this number of men, this number of dogs, so many sharp-shooters are assigned to us;' and he came and robbed him of them? — He replied: Then he has led them to the place of wild beasts and robbers. MISHNAH. A GRATUITOUS BAILEE MAY STIPULATE TO BE FREE FROM AN OATH;  A BORROWER, FROM PAYMENT; A PAID BAILEE AND A HIRER, FROM AN OATH  OR PAYMENT.  A STIPULATION CONTRARY TO A SCRIPTURAL ENACTMENT IS NULL; ALSO, EVERY STIPULATION WHICH IS PRECEDED BY THE ACTION  IS NULL; AND WHATEVER CAN BE FULFILLED EVENTUALLY, AND IT IS STIPULATED AT THE OUTSET, THE STIPULATION IS VALID. GEMARA. But why so? Is it not a stipulation contrary to Scriptural law, which is null?  This agrees with R. Judah, who maintained: In civil matters  the stipulation is valid. For it has been taught: If one says to a woman, 'Behold, thou art betrothed unto me on condition that thou hast upon me no claims of sustenance, raiment and conjugal rights', she is betrothed, but the condition is null; this is R. Meir's view. R. Judah said: In respect of money matters, his condition is valid. But can you assign it to R. Judah? Then consider the second clause: A STIPULATION CONTRARY TO A SCRIPTURAL ENACTMENT is NULL: does not this agree with R. Meir? — That is no difficulty; in truth, it is R. Judah's view, but this second clause does not refer to civil matters. Then consider the latter clause: EVERY STIPULATION WHICH IS PRECEDED BY AN ACTION IS NULL. Now, whom do you know to hold this view? R. Meir. For it has been taught: Abba Halafta, of Kefar Hananiah,  said on R. Meir's authority: If the condition [is stated] before the act, it is valid; if the reverse, it is not! — But it is all in accordance with R. Meir: yet here it is different, because at the very outset he accepted no liability. It has been taught: And a paid bailee may stipulate to be [liable] as a borrower: How: with [mere] words?  — Said Samuel: If he acquires it from his hand.  R. Johanan said: You may even say that he does not acquire it from his hand; yet in return for the benefit he receives in that he achieves thereby a reputation for being trustworthy, he renders himself fully responsible. AND WHATEVER CAN BE FULFILLED EVENTUALLY etc. R. Tabla said in Rab's name: This is the view of R. Judah b. Tema. But the Sages say: Even if it is impossible to fulfil it eventually, and one stipulates it at the beginning, the stipulation is valid. For it has been taught: [If one says,] Here is thy divorce, on condition that thou ascendest to Heaven or descendest to the deep, on condition that thou swallowest a hundred cubit cane or crossest the great sea on foot; if the condition is fulfilled, the divorce is valid, but not otherwise.  R. Judah b. Tema said: In such a case it is a [valid] divorce. R. Judah b. Tema stated a general rule: That which can never be fulfilled, and he [the husband] stipulates it at the beginning, it is only to repel her,  and is valid. R. Nahman said in Rab's name: The halachah is as R. Judah b. Tema. R. Nahman b. Isaac said: Our Mishnah too proves it,  for it states: WHATEVER CAN BE FULFILLED EVENTUALLY, AND IT IS STIPULATED AT THE OUTSET, THE STIPULATION IS VALID. Hence, if it is impossible of fulfilment, the stipulation is null. This proves it. MISHNAH. IF A MAN BORROWS A COW AND BORROWS OR HIRES ITS OWNER WITH IT,  OR IF HE FIRST HIRES THE OWNER AND THEN BORROWS THE COW, AND IT DIES, HE IS NOT RESPONSIBLE, FOR IT IS WRITTEN, BUT IF THE OWNER THEREOF BE WITH IT, HE SHALL NOT MAKE IT GOOD.