Babylonian Talmud

Rodkinson 1918 — source 11, scan section 19

creditor possesses real estate, as in the meantime he can sell his real estate, as it will go down in price." It is also an obligation on the court to give notice to the defendant that his property will be sold, if he is near by ; but not if he is far away and there are no relatives ; but if there are, or there is a caravan by whom he can be notified, he is notified that this will occur after twelve months, until the caravan should make its tour and return. As Rabbina did in case of Mar Aha, where he postponed the selling for twelve months, the time which it takes for the caravan to tour and retour from the coun- try of Husia. [Also this was not produced] as the above case is different; the defendant was a mighty man, and if the warrant would appear before him, it could not be collected from him, and therefore he was only notified that a warrant would be issued' (and it was issued in such a moment that he could do nothing) ; but in another case the warrant was to be suspended only until a messenger had time to return with the answer of the defendant, about three or four days. Rabbina said: " A messenger of the court should be trusted as two witnesses in case of putting a man under the ban; but if he testifies, in such a case where the man must be notified that, if he will not follow the order, he will be put under the ban, he may not be listened to unless the scribe is paid for issuing it." Rabbina said again: " If a summons was sent with a woman or with his neighbor, who are going to the city where the defendant, resides, and he does not appear, he may be put under the ban (as generally the above have fulfilled their prom- ise to bring him the summons). But this is only when he lives out of the town ; but if he is in the city, he is not to be put under the ban, because the former, through whom the summons was sent, may rely upon the court that it will send its own mes- senger, unless he was summoned by the messenger of the court. " Rabha said: " If one was notified that he will be put under the ban if he will not appear before the court, this writing must not be destroyed until he appears (even if he says he xvill do so), and if such was issued for not obeying the order of the court, it shall not be destroyed until he follows the order." [The latter case is not practised, but it is destroyed as soon as he promises to follow the order.] R. Hisda says: " A note concerning putting under ban is to be used only when lie was summoned for the three days when 256 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD. the court was sitting (Monday, Thursday, and Monday again), and only the following Thursday to be issued." R. Asi happened to be in the court of R. Kahana, and saw that a woman was summoned in the afternoon, and on the mor- row, when she did not appear, he issued a notification that she would be put under the ban. Said the former to him: " Does not the master hold the decision of R. Hisda stated above ?" And he answered: " This was said only when the man is not in the city, but for this woman, who is sure to be in the city and summoned, it is a contempt of the court and must be punished." R. Jehudah said: " One must not be summoned by the court on the eve of a Sabbath or a festival (or when he is a student), not in the days of the months Nison and Tishri (as then the college examination took place), but a summons may be issued in these days to appear after the above months. On the eves of Sabbaths and festivals, however, even to appear after Sab- bath or festival is not to be issued, because he is then busy to prepare for the following day and the summons may escape his mind." R. Na'hman said: "One must not be summoned verbally to appear on Monday, on the Sabbath before it when he comes to hear the lecture, and also on the day when he comes to hear the lecture of the coming festival. (It was usually lectured thirty days before each festival.) He shall appear on some day afterwards (for fear they will restrain from coming to the lecture). When people used to come to R. Na'hman in the days mentioned above with claims against some of the assembled people, he used to say to them: " Did I assemble them for your benefit?" [Said the Gemara: " Now when the time is changed and swindle is used, no attention may be given to all the terms said above."] ' ' If, however, it was an article of responsibility, ' ' etc. Rabbi taught his son Simeon: " Not only real estate, but even an ani- mal which they use for labor, they are obliged to return for the honor of their father." R. Kahana questioned Rabh: " How is it with a bed or a table which they are using ? ' ' And he answered [Prov. ix. 9] : " Give to the wise (instruction) and he will become yet wiser. ' ' (It means the same is the case with all other things.) MISHNA //. : Money must not be changed from the treas- ury of duties, and not from the treasury of the treasurers for charity, and also charity must not be taken from them ; it may, however, be done with the private money of the above treas- urers, or when it is in market charity may be accepted. TRACT BABA KAMA (THE FIRST GATE). 257 GEMARA: A Boraitha, an addition to the above statement, teaches: " He may take change from a dinar if he has to pay a part of it." "Treasury of duties." Why not? Did not Samuel say: " The law of the government must be respected as the law of the Torah. ' ' Hence the duties must not be considered robbery ? Said R. Hanina bar Kahana in the name of Samuel: " The Mishna treats of a contractor who paid the government the duties of the inhabitants, and he collects from them as much as he desires, and in such a case it is considered robbery." The disciples of R. Janai say: " The Mishna treats of a duty not established by the government (but by some mighty people of the city). ' ' According to others, the above statements of Samuel and R. Janai were delivered in connection with the following Boraitha: " Vows may be made before murderers or contractors of duty concerning the heave-offering or concerning the royal treasure {i.e.^ if one vows it shall be forbidden to consume any fruits, if these fruits do not belong to one of the above-men- tioned)." And when it was questioned: " Why the contractor of duty is counted among murderers," etc., the above explana- tions of Samuel and Janai were given. R. Simeon said: " R. Aqiba when he came from Zefiru lectured as follows: " Whence do we deduce that the robbery of a heathen is prohibited ? " It is written [Lev. xv. 48]: " After he has sold himself, shall he have the right of redemption " (the verse treats when a Jew has sold himself for a slave to a heathen), which means that even when the Jewish court has the might to get him free without