Bava Kamma 225

אבל איתיה במתא לא דאמרינן אימר לא אמרו ליה דאמרי אשכחינהו שליחא דב"ד ואמר ליה

but if he was then in town this would not be so, as there is a possibility that they<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the women or the neighbours. ');">¹</span> might not transmit the summons to him, thinking that the usher of the Court of Law will himself surely find him and deliver it to him. Again, we do not apply this rule except where the party would not have to pass by the door of the Court of Law, but if he would have to pass by the door of the Court of Law this would not be so, as they<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 660, n. 13. ');">²</span>

ולא אמרן אלא דלא חליף אבבא דבי דינא אבל חליף אבבא דבי דינא לא אמרי אשכחוה בי דינא ואמרי ליה

might say that at the Court of Law they will surely find him first and deliver him the summons. Again, we do not rule thus except where the party was to come home on the same day, but if he had not to come home on the same day this would not be so, for we might say they would surely forget it altogether. Raba stated: Where a Pethiha was written upon a defaulter for not having appeared before the court, it will not be destroyed so long as he does not [actually] appear before the court.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A mere promise to appear does not suffice. ');">³</span>

ולא אמרן אלא דאתי ביומיה אבל לא אתי ביומיה לא אימא אישתלויי אשתלי

[So also] if it was for not having obeyed the law, it will not be destroyed until he [actually] obeys the law;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A mere promise to appear does not suffice. ');">³</span> this however is not correct: as soon as he declares his intention to obey, we have to destroy the Pethiha.

אמר רבא האי מאן דכתיב עליה פתיחא על דלא אתי לדינא עד דאתי לדינא לא מקרעינן ליה על דלא ציית לדינא עד דציית לא מקרעינן ליה ולא היא כיון דאמר צייתנא קרעינן ליה:

R. Hisda said: [In a legal summons] we cite the man to appear on Monday, [then] on Thursday and [then] on the next Monday, [i.e.] we fix one date and then another date after one more date, and on the morrow [of the last day] we write the Pethiha. R. Assi<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' More correctly 'R. Ashi'. ');">⁴</span>

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. ');">⁵</span>

רב אסי איקלע בי רב כהנא חזא ההיא איתתא דאזמנה לדינא בפניא ובצפרא כתיב עלה פתיחא א"ל לא סבר לה מר להא דאמר רב חסדא קובעין זמן שני וחמישי ושני

or during Tishri,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On account of urgent agricultural work; cf. Ber. 35b. ');">⁵</span> or on the eve of a holy day or on the eve of a Sabbath. We can, however, during Nisan cite him to appear after Nisan, and so also during Tishri we may cite him to appear after Tishri, but on the eve of the Sabbath we do not cite him to appear after Sabbath, the reason being that he might be busy<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And take no notice of the summons. ');">⁶</span>

א"ל ה"מ גברא דאניס וליתיה במתא אבל איתתא כיון דאיתה במתא ולא אתיא מורדת היא:

with preparations for Sabbath.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Shab. 119a. ');">⁷</span> R. Nahman said: We never cite the participants of the Kallah<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the Assembly of Babylonian scholars in the months of Elul and Adar; v. B.M. (Sonc. ed.) p. 560, n. 6 and B.B. (Sonc. ed.) p. 60, n. 7. ');">⁸</span>

אמר רב יהודה לא יהבינא זמנא לא ביומי ניסן ולא ביומי תשרי לא במעלי יומא טבא ולא במעלי שבתא אבל מניסן לבתר יומי ניסן וביומי תשרי לבתר תשרי קבעינן ממעלי שבתא לבתר מעלי שבתא לא קבעינן מאי טעמא בעבידתיה דשבתא טריד

during the period of the Kallah or the participants of the Festival sessions<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For otherwise they may abstain from coming to the Assemblies. ');">⁹</span> during the Festive Season.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which commences thirty days before the festival; v. Pes. 6a. ');">¹⁰</span>

אמר רב נחמן לא יהבינן זמנא לא לבני כלה בכלה ולא לבני ריגלא בריגלא כי הוו אתו לקמיה דרב נחמן אמר להו וכי לדידכו כנופייכו והאידנא דאיכא רמאי חיישינן:

When plaintiffs came before R. Nahman [and demanded summonses to be made out during this season] he used to say to them: Have I assembled them for your sake? But now that there are impostors,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Abusing this privilege. ');">¹¹</span> there is a risk [that they purposely came to the assemblies to escape justice].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And we therefore issue a summons. ');">¹²</span>

אם היה דבר שיש בו אחריות חייב לשלם: מתני ליה רבי לר"ש בריה לא דבר שיש בו אחריות ממש אלא אפילו פרה וחורש בה חמור ומחמר אחריו חייבין להחזיר מפני כבוד אביהן

BUT IF THERE WAS ANYTHING [LEFT] WHICH COULD SERVE AS SECURITY, THEY WOULD BE LIABLE TO PAY. Rabbi taught R. Simeon his son: The words 'ANYTHING WHICH COULD SERVE AS SECURITY' should not [be taken literally to] mean actual security, for even if he left a cow to plough with or an ass to drive after, they would be liable to restore it to save the good name of their father. R. Kahana thereupon asked Rab: What would be the law in the case of a bed upon which they sit, or a table at which they eat?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is not kept so much in the eye of the public as is the case with the cow or the ass. ');">¹³</span> — He replied<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The law is exactly the same. ');">¹⁴</span>

בעי מיניה רב כהנא מרב מטה ומיסב עליה שולחן ואוכל עליו מהו אמר לו (משלי ט, ט) תן לחכם ויחכם עוד:

[with the verse], Give instructions to a wise man and he will yet be wiser.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Prov. IX, 9. ');">¹⁵</span> <b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. NO MONEY MAY BE TAKEN IN CHANGE EITHER FROM THE BOX OF THE CUSTOMS-COLLECTORS<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As these are considered to act ultra vires and thus unlawfully. ');">¹⁶</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> אין פורטין לא מתיבת המוכסין ולא מכיס של גבאין ואין נוטלין מהם צדקה אבל נוטל הוא מתוך ביתו או מן השוק:

OR FROM THE PURSE OF THE TAX-COLLECTORS,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As these are considered to act ultra vires and thus unlawfully. ');">¹⁶</span> NOR MAY CHARITY BE TAKEN FROM THEM, THOUGH IT MAY BE TAKEN FROM THEIR [OWN COINS WHICH THEY HAVE AT] HOME OR IN THE MARKET PLACE.

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> תנא אבל נותן לו דינר ונותן לו את השאר:

<b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. A Tanna taught: When he gives him<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., a customs-collector or a tax-collector. ');">¹⁷</span> a <i>denar</i> he may receive back the balance [due to him].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For otherwise he would lose it altogether. ');">¹⁸</span>

ומוכסין והאמר שמואל דינא דמלכותא דינא

In the case of customs-collectors, why should the dictum of Samuel not apply that the law of the State is law?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. B.B. (Sonc. ed.) p. 222, n. 6. Why then are customs collectors considered as acting unlawfully. ');">¹⁹</span> — R. Hanina b. Kahana said that Samuel stated that a customs-collector who is bound by no limit [is surely not acting lawfully]. At the School of R. Jannai it was stated that we are dealing here with a customs-collector who acts on his own authority.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Without the authority of the ruling power. ');">²⁰</span>

אמר רב חנינא בר כהנא אמר שמואל במוכס שאין לו קצבה דבי ר' ינאי אמרי במוכס העומד מאליו

Some read these statements with reference to [the following]: No man may wear a garment in which wool and linen are mixed<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Lev. XIX, 19. ');">²¹</span> even over ten other garments and even for the purpose of escaping the customs.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Kil. IX, 2. ');">²²</span>

איכא דמתני לה אהא לא ילבש אדם כלאים אפי' על גבי עשרה בגדים להבריח בו את המכס מתני' דלא כר"ע דתניא אסור להבריח את המכס ר"ש אומר משום ר"ע מותר להבריח את המכס

[And it was thereupon asked], Does not this Mishnaic ruling conflict with the view of R. Akiba, as taught: It is an [unqualified] transgression to elude the customs;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Sem. 11, 9 and Tosef, B.K. X, 8. ');">²³</span> R. Simeon however, said in the name of R. Akiba that customs may [sometimes] be eluded<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where the collectors are acting unlawfully, as will soon be explained. ');">²⁴</span>

בשלמא לענין כלאים בהא קמיפלגי דמר סבר דבר שאין מתכוין מותר ומר סבר דבר שאין מתכוין אסור אלא להבריח בו את המכס מי שרי והאמר שמואל דינא דמלכותא דינא

[by putting on garments of linen and wool]. Now, regarding garments of linen and wool I can very well explain their difference<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the anonymous Tanna and R. Simeon in the name of R. Akiba. ');">²⁵</span> to consists in this, that while one master<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Simeon in the name of R. Akiba; cf. Tos. Zeb. 91b. ');">²⁶</span>

א"ר חנינא בר כהנא אמר שמואל במוכס שאין לו קצבה דבי ר' ינאי אמרי במוכס העומד מאליו

maintained that an act done unintentionally could not be prohibited,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As also maintained by R. Simeon in the case of other transgressions; v. Shab. 41b, Keth. 5b a.e. ');">²⁷</span> the other master maintained that an act done unintentionally should also be prohibited;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As indeed maintained by R. Judah in Shab. 41b a.e. ');">²⁸</span>

ואיכא דמתני אהא נודרין להרגין ולחרמין ולמוכסין שהיא של תרומה שהיא של בית מלך אע"פ שאינה של תרומה אע"פ שאינה של מלך ולמוכסין והאמר שמואל דינא דמלכותא דינא

but is it not a definite transgression to elude the customs? Did Samuel not state that the law of the State is law? — R. Hanina b. Kahana said that Samuel stated that a customs-collector who is bound by no limit [is surely not acting lawfully]. At the School of R. Jannai it was stated that we were dealing here with a customs-collector who acted on his own authority.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Without the authority of the ruling power. ');">²⁹</span> &nbsp; &nbsp; Still others read these statements with reference to the following: To [escape] murderers or robbers or customs-collectors one may confirm by a vow a statement that [e.g.] the grain is <i>terumah</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. ');">³⁰</span>

א"ר חנינא בר כהנא אמר שמואל במוכס שאין לו קצבה דבי ר' ינאי אמרי במוכס העומד מאליו

or belongs to the Royal Court, though it was not <i>terumah</i> and though it did not belong to the Royal Court.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ned. III, 4. ');">³¹</span> But [why should] to customs-collectors [not] apply the statement made by Samuel that the law of the State has the force of law? R. Hanina b. Kahana said that a customs-collector who is bound by no limit [is surely not acting lawfully]. At the school of R. Jannai it was stated that we were dealing here with a customs-collector who acted on his own authority.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 663, n. 13. ');">³²</span>

רב אשי אמר במוכס כנעני דתניא ישראל וכנעני אנס שבאו לדין אם אתה יכול לזכהו בדיני ישראל זכהו ואמור לו כך דינינו בדיני כנענים זכהו ואמור לו כך דינכם ואם לאו באין עליו בעקיפין דברי ר' ישמעאל ר"ע אומר אין באין עליו בעקיפין מפני קידוש השם

But R. Ashi said: We suppose the customs-collector<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In all these cases referred to above. ');">³³</span> here to be a heathen publican<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra, p. 211, n. 6. ');">³⁴</span>

ור"ע טעמא דאיכא קידוש השם הא ליכא קידוש השם באין

as it was taught: <font>'Where a suit arises between an Israelite and a heathen, if you can justify the former according to the laws of Israel, justify him and say: 'This is our law'; so also if you can justify him by the laws of the heathens justify him and say [to the other party:] 'This is your law'; but if this can not be done, we use subterfuges to circumvent him.</font><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra, p. 211, n. 6. ');">³⁴</span> This is the view of R. Ishmael, but R. Akiba said that we should not attempt to circumvent him on account of the sanctification of the Name. <font>Now according to R. Akiba the whole reason [appears to be,] because of the sanctification of the Name, but were there no infringement of the sanctification of the Name, we could circumvent him!</font> Is then the robbery of a heathen permissible?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [I.e., in withholding anything to which he is entitled; v. Sanh. (Sonc. ed.) p. 388, n. 6. Graetz MGWJ, 1881, p. 495. shows clearly that the whole controversy whether robbery of a heathen was permissible was directed against the iniquitous Fiscus Judaicus imposed by Vespasian and exacted with much rigor by Domitian.] ');">³⁵</span>

וגזל כנעני מי שרי והתניא אמר ר' שמעון דבר זה דרש ר"ע כשבא מזפירין מנין לגזל כנעני שהוא אסור ת"ל (ויקרא כה, מח) אחרי נמכר גאולה תהיה לו

Has it not been taught<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Sifra on Lev. XXV, 48. ');">³⁶</span> that R. Simeon stated that the following matter was expounded by R. Akiba when he arrived from Zifirin:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Prob. the headland of Cyprus; Zephyrium (Jast.). [Greatz, Geschichte, IV, p. 135. connects R. Akiba's visit to Zifirin with his extensive travels for the purpose of rousing the Jews against the Roman tyranny.] ');">³⁷</span> 'Whence can we learn that the robbery of a heathen is forbidden? From the significant words: <i>After that he is sold<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., an Israelite to a Canaanite. ');">³⁸</span></i> he may be redeemed again,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXV, 48. ');">³⁹</span>