Mishna:
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:
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.
Nedarim 27a
Mishna
נודרין להרגין ולחרמין ולמוכסין, שהיא תרומה - אע"פ שאינו תרומה, שהן של בית המלך - אע"פ שאינן של בית המלך. בש"א: בכל נודרין חוץ מבשבועה, וב"ה אומרים: אף בשבועה. ב"ש אומרים: לא יפתח לו בנדר, ובה"א: אף יפתח לו. ב"ש אומרים: במה שהוא מדירו,ובה"א: אף במה שאינו מדירו. כיצד? אמר לו: אמור קונם אשתי נהנית לי, ואמר קונם אשתי ובני נהנין לי, בש"א: אשתו מותרת ובניואסורין, וב"ה אומרים: אלו ואלו מותרין
Gemara
והאמר שמואל: דינא דמלכותא דינא!
אמר רב חיננא א"ר כהנא אמר שמואל: במוכס שאין לו קצבה.
דבי ר' ינאי אמר: במוכס העומד מאליו
Mishnah. One may vow to murderers, robbers, and publicans that it [the produce which they demand] is terumah, even if it is not, or that it belongs to the royal house, even if it does not.
Beth Shammai maintain: one may make any form of vow, excepting that sustained by an oath.
Beth Hillel maintain: even such are permissible.
Beth Shammai rule: he must not volunteer to vow
Beth Hillel rule: he may do so.
Beth Shammai say: [he may vow] only as far as he [the murderer, etc.] Makes him vow
Beth Hillel say: even in respect of what he does not make him vow. E.g., if he [the robber] said to him, say: konam be any benefit my wife has of me'; and he declared, 'konam be any benefit my wife and children have of me,'
Beth Shammai rule: his wife is permitted, but his children are forbidden.
Beth Hillel rule: both are permitted.
Gemara. But Samuel
said, the law of the country is law?
R Hinena said in the name of R Kahana in the name of Samuel: the mishnah refers
to a publican who is not limited to a legal due.
The school of R Jannai answered: this refers to an unauthorised collector.
אמר רבא תדע דקטלי דיקלי וגשרי גישרי ועברינן עלייהו
א"ל אביי ודלמא משום דאייאוש להו מינייהו מרייהו
אמר ליה אי לא דינא דמלכותא דינא היכי מייאשי
Said Raba: You can prove this from the fact that the authorities fell palm-trees [without the consent of the owners] and construct bridges [with them] and we nevertheless make use of them by passing over them.
But Abaye said to him: This is so perhaps because the proprietors have meanwhile abandoned their right in them.
He, however, said to him: If the rulings of the State had not the force of law, why should the proprietors abandon their right? Still, as the officers do not fully carry out the instructions of the ruler, since the ruler orders them to go and fell the trees from each valley [in equal proportion], and they come and fell them from one particular valley, [why then do we make use of the bridges which are thus constructed from misappropriated timber?] — The agent of the ruler is like the ruler himself and can not be troubled [to arrange the felling in equal proportion], and it is the proprietors who bring this loss on themselves, since it was for them to have obtained contributions from the owners of all the valleys and handed over [the] money [to defray the public expenditure].
רב הונא בריה דרב יהושע אמר אפילו שערי דכדא משתעבדי לכרגא
אמר רב אשי אמר לי הונא בר נתן שאילתינהו לספרי דרבא ואמרו לי הלכתא כרב הונא בריה דרב יהושע ולא היא התם לאוקומי מילתיה הוא
MISHNAH. ALL DOCUMENTS WHICH ARE ACCEPTED IN HEATHEN COURTS,5 EVEN IF THEY THAT SIGNED THEM WERE GENTILES, ARE VALID [FOR JEWISH COURTS] EXCEPT WRITS OF DIVORCE AND OF EMANCIPATION. R. SIMEON SAYS: THESE ALSO ARE VALID; THEY WERE ONLY PRONOUNCED [TO BE INVALID] WHEN DRAWN UP BY UNAUTHORISED PERSONS.
GEMARA. [Our Mishnah] lays down a comprehensive rule in which no distinction is made between a sale and a gift. We can understand that the rule should apply to a sale, because the purchaser acquires the object of sale from the moment when he hands over the money in their presence, and the document is a mere corroboration; for if he did not hand over the money in their presence, they would not take the risk of drawing up a document of sale for him. But with a gift [it is different]. Through what [does the recipient] obtain possession? Through this document, [is it not]? And this document is a mere piece of clay? — Said Samuel: The law of the Government is law. Or if you prefer, I can reply: Instead of 'except writs of divorce' in the Mishnah, read, 'except [documents] like writs of divorce.'