Related%20passage for Shabbat 156:8

אביי אמר דכולי עלמא אסור לשהות שטר פרוע והכא במודה בשטר שכתבו שצריך לקיימו קמיפלגי תנא קמא סבר מודה בשטר שכתבו צריך לקיימו ורבי יהודה סבר מודה בשטר שכתבו אין צריך לקיימו ומאי עד שלא פרעו ומשפרעו

Our Rabbis taught: If one carries out a tax-collector's receipt before having shown it to the collector, he is culpable;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since he still needs it. ');">¹⁹</span> after having shewn it to the collector, he is not culpable.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The receipt of tax-exemption was issued by a higher authority and then shown to the actual collector. Once shown, he has no further use for it, and is therefore not liable for carrying it out. ');">²⁰</span> R. Judah said: Even after showing it to the collector, he is culpable, because he still needs it. Wherein do they differ? Abaye said: They differ in respect to collectors' runners.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The police, who stop people and demand toll. R. Judah argues that the receipt must he shown to these; while the Rabbis hold that the person stopped could refer him to the collector or superintendent. ');">²¹</span> Raba said: They differ in respect to the higher and the lesser collectors.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. n. 4. R. Judah maintains that for this reason the document is always required, while the Rabbis hold that a secret password was used as a proof of exemption. ');">²²</span> R. Ashi said: They [even] differ in respect of one tax-collector, because he needs it [the document] for showing to the second, so that he can say to him, 'See, I am a man [exempted] by the collector.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g., if the exemption is in respect of a toll-bridge. Even if there is always one man only on duty at one end, the document may be required for the man at the other end. V. T.A. II, p. 375. ');">²³</span> Our Rabbis taught: If one carries out a note of debt, if before it has been settled, he is culpable; if after it has been settled, he is not culpable. R. Judah said: Even after settlement he is culpable, because he needs it. Wherein do they differ? R. Joseph said: They differ as to whether it is forbidden to keep a settled note. The Rabbis maintain: It is forbidden to keep a settled note;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Therefore it is of no value either to the creditor or to the debtor; consequently no culpability is entailed in carrying it out. — The reason of the prohibition is that one may demand payment afresh. ');">²⁴</span> while R. Judah holds: One may keep a settled note.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence the paper itself is of value. ');">²⁵</span> Abaye said: All hold that a settled note may not be kept; but here they differ as to whether a note requires confirmation [even] when he [the debtor] admits that it was [validly] written. The first Tanna holds: Even when [the debtor] admits that a note [was validly] written, it must be confirmed.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By its signatories attesting their signatures (Rashi in Keth. 19a, B.M. 7a and 72b). Otherwise the debtor can plead that it has been settled. For without the confirmation of the signatories he could successfully plead that it is a forgery, hence he is also believed in his plea of repayment, since the validity of the note rests on his word. Consequently if the debtor pleads that he has repaid the loan — this is now the meaning of 'if after it has been settled' — the note is valueless. ');">²⁶</span> R. Judah holds: When [the debtor] admits that a note was [validly] written, it need not be confirmed. And what is the meaning of 'if before it has been settled' and 'if after it has been settled'?

Explore related%20passage for Shabbat 156:8. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.