בארוכות שם קצרות סי' מ"ט ועי' מזה מרדכי ב"ב פ"ב סי' תקכ"ב. ועוד נוהנין בכל המלכות שאם יש ליחיד דין ודברים על הקהל עבור המס שהוא צריך ליתן המס תחילה ואח"כ יתבע הקהל לדין כי הקהל רוצים להיות מוחזקים בכל שעה וראיה אני מביא להם מהא דאמר פ' איזהו נשך (בבא מציעא ד' ע"ג:) מוהרקייהו דהני בטפסא דמלכא מנחי דינא דמלכותא דינא ועוד כיון שכל הקהל שותפין בזה המס שותף אינו חולק שלא לדעת חבירו (ב"ק ד' קט"ז:) ורשאין בני העיר להסיע על קצתן (ב"ב ד"ח.) וכ"ש לגבות ממנו מס הבא לשנות עליו הראיה:
The custom is well established throughout the kingdom that when an individual has a complaint against the community regarding the tax he was assessed with, he must first pay that tax and, then, may summon the community to court, for the community prefers to be in possession of such tax-money. As corroborative evidence of the legality of this procedure I cite the talmudic ruling that those who pay the capitation tax for others are justified in forcing the latter in their service (B. M. 73b), since "the law of the land prevails". Moreover, since the members of the community are partners in the payment of the taxes, no individual may willfully withdraw from the partnership. Since the majority (of the members of a community) may force the minority to abide by its rulings (B. B. 8b), it may certainly force an individual to pay his taxes. The burden of proof to the contrary rests upon the person who seeks to deviate from this rule. Since the overlord customarily collects his taxes collectively from the entire community, the exact obligation of each member of the community regarding such tax becomes determined as if already collected (the very moment the overlord demands the collective tax); and if the overlord subsequently desires to free or relieve one member at the expense of the others, he has no right to do so. Such an act on his part is not considered "law of the land," but rather constitutes outright robbery, and is, therefore, not valid. SOURCES: Cr. 49; Pr. 708, 915; L. 371; Am II, 130. Cf. Agudah B. M. 108; Weil, Responsa 124; ibid. 133; ibid. 147; Menahem of Merseburg, Nimmukim (36); Terumat Hadeshen 341.
בארוכות שם קצרות סי' מ"ט ועי' מזה מרדכי ב"ב פ"ב סי' תקכ"ב. ועוד נוהנין בכל המלכות שאם יש ליחיד דין ודברים על הקהל עבור המס שהוא צריך ליתן המס תחילה ואח"כ יתבע הקהל לדין כי הקהל רוצים להיות מוחזקים בכל שעה וראיה אני מביא להם מהא דאמר פ' איזהו נשך (בבא מציעא ד' ע"ג:) מוהרקייהו דהני בטפסא דמלכא מנחי דינא דמלכותא דינא ועוד כיון שכל הקהל שותפין בזה המס שותף אינו חולק שלא לדעת חבירו (ב"ק ד' קט"ז:) ורשאין בני העיר להסיע על קצתן (ב"ב ד"ח.) וכ"ש לגבות ממנו מס הבא לשנות עליו הראיה:
The custom is well established throughout the kingdom that when an individual has a complaint against the community regarding the tax he was assessed with, he must first pay that tax and, then, may summon the community to court, for the community prefers to be in possession of such tax-money. As corroborative evidence of the legality of this procedure I cite the talmudic ruling that those who pay the capitation tax for others are justified in forcing the latter in their service (B. M. 73b), since "the law of the land prevails". Moreover, since the members of the community are partners in the payment of the taxes, no individual may willfully withdraw from the partnership. Since the majority (of the members of a community) may force the minority to abide by its rulings (B. B. 8b), it may certainly force an individual to pay his taxes. The burden of proof to the contrary rests upon the person who seeks to deviate from this rule.
Since the overlord customarily collects his taxes collectively from the entire community, the exact obligation of each member of the community regarding such tax becomes determined as if already collected (the very moment the overlord demands the collective tax); and if the overlord subsequently desires to free or relieve one member at the expense of the others, he has no right to do so. Such an act on his part is not considered "law of the land," but rather constitutes outright robbery, and is, therefore, not valid.
SOURCES: Cr. 49; Pr. 708, 915; L. 371; Am II, 130. Cf. Agudah B. M. 108; Weil, Responsa 124; ibid. 133; ibid. 147; Menahem of Merseburg, Nimmukim (36); Terumat Hadeshen 341.