For example, if an oppressor demands money from the guardian of an orphan or the administrator of an endowment, and, after making every possible effort to ward off the demand, he succeeds in doing so by giving the oppressor or someone else an amount (1) smaller than what was demanded, then he is a doer of good, and there is no cause for reproach against those who do good.
Likewise, an owner’s agent—whether an auctioneer (2), a scribe (3), or someone else—who acts on the owner’s behalf in concluding contracts, receiving payments, and paying what is demanded from him is not thereby acting on behalf of the oppressors in collecting the money.
Similarly, if a wrongful levy were imposed upon the people of a village, street, marketplace, or city, and a well-intentioned man intervened to avert it from them to the fullest extent possible, then apportioned it among them (4) according to their means, without showing favoritism toward himself or anyone else and without accepting bribes—but rather acting on their behalf to defend them and make the payment= he would be a doer of good.
In most cases, however, whoever becomes involved in such matters acts as an agent of the oppressors, showing favoritism, taking bribes, shielding whomever he wishes, and exacting payment from whomever he wishes. Such people are among the worst wrongdoers: they, their accomplices, and those like them will be gathered in coffins of fire and then cast into the Fire (5).