Bava Kamma

but if he was then in town this would not be so, as there is a possibility that they  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  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.  [So also] if it was for not having obeyed the law, it will not be destroyed until he [actually] obeys the law;  this however is not correct: as soon as he declares his intention to obey, we have to destroy the Pethiha. 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  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,  or during Tishri,  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appear after Nisan, and so also during Tishri we may cite him to appear after Tishri, but on the eve of the Sabbath we do not cite him to appear after Sabbath, the reason being that he might be busy  with preparations for Sabbath.  R. Nahman said: We never cite the participants of the Kallah  during the period of the Kallah or the participants of the Festival sessions  during the Festive Season.  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,  there is a risk [that they purposely came to the assemblies to escape justice]. 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?  — He replied  [with the verse], Give instructions to a wise man and he will yet be wiser. MISHNAH. NO MONEY MAY BE TAKEN IN CHANGE EITHER FROM THE BOX OF THE CUSTOMS-COLLECTORS  OR FROM THE PURSE OF THE TAX-COLLECTORS,  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. GEMARA. A Tanna taught: When he gives him  a denar he may receive back the balance [due to him]. In the case of customs-collectors, why should the dictum of Samuel not apply 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 are dealing here with a customs-collector who acts on his own authority.  Some read these statements with reference to [the following]: No man may wear a garment in which wool and linen are mixed  even over ten other garments and even for the purpose of escaping the customs.  [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;  R. Simeon however, said in the name of R. Akiba that customs may [sometimes] be eluded  [by putting on garments of linen and wool]. Now, regarding garments of linen and wool I can very well explain their difference  to consists in this, that while one master  maintained that an act done unintentionally could not be prohibited,  the other master maintained that an act done unintentionally should also be prohibited;  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.