Commentary for Bava Kamma 225:5
אמר רב חסדא קובעים זמן שני וחמישי ושני זמנא וזמנא בתר זמנא ולמחר כתבינן
happened to be at R. Kahana's where he noticed that a certain woman had been summoned to appear before the court on the previous evening, [and as she failed to appear] a Pethiha was already written against her on the following morning. He thereupon said to R. Kahana: Does the Master not accept the view expressed by R. Hisda that [in a legal summons] we cite the defendant to appear on Monday, [then] on Thursday and [then] on the next Monday? He replied: This applies only to a man who might be unavoidably prevented, through being out of town, but a woman, being [always] in town and still failing to appear is considered contumacious [after the first act of disobedience]. Rab Judah said: We never cite a defendant to appear either during Nisan,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On account of urgent agricultural work; cf. Ber. 35b. ');"><sup>5</sup></span>
Explore commentary for Bava Kamma 225:5. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.