Siman 163

The residents of a city compel one another, and even the minority compels the majority, to make a wall, doors, and a bolt for the city, and to build a beit knesset, and to buy a Sefer Torah, Nevi'im, and Ketuvim so that anyone from the public who wishes may read from them. In our times, when books are printed, they do not compel regarding Nevi'im and Ketuvim [Sma] written on parchment; they only compel regarding a Sefer Torah because it is necessary to read from it in public. Even though many places read the Haftarah from Nevi'im written on parchment, nevertheless, there is no power to compel regarding this [it appears to me]. They do compel to buy necessary printed books, such as Tanakh with Rashi's commentary, Mishnayot, Shas, the Turim, the Rambam, and the four sections of the Shulchan Aruch, so that whoever wishes to study will have that with which to study. Similarly, they compel for all the needs of the city, such as a bathhouse and a mikveh, and to appoint a Rav and a chazzan. In Orach Chaim siman 53, the law of hiring a chazzan for the residents of a city was explained. The residents of a city compel one another to welcome guests, to distribute tzedakah to them, to contribute to the tzedakah chest, to hire melamdim to teach Torah to the children of the poor, and to establish a hospital for poor sick people; and so is the custom in all the dispersions of Israel. The law of hiring for a minyan for the Yamim Noraim, even in the smallest place, was explained there in siman 55, that they compel one another. Regarding the expenses of any matter necessary for the city according to the assessment of the beit din, they compel one another. In siman 2, it was explained that the city leaders in their city have the status of the Great beit din. In siman 4, it was explained regarding a public that has a legal case with an individual, they are called the possessors; see there.

Regarding all communal needs where they are unable to reach an agreement due to a difference of opinions, they should seat all the householders who pay tax and they shall accept upon themselves a blessing that each one will state his opinion for the sake of Heaven, and they shall follow the majority of opinions. And if the minority refuses, the majority can compel them even through their laws, and they may incur expenses for this and they must give their portion. And one who refuses to state his opinion according to the blessing, his opinion is voided, and we follow the majority of the remaining ones who stated their opinion. And similarly, in an assembly where they announced to gather or sent attendants to come to the assembly, anyone who did not come, his opinion is voided and he is like one who surrenders his opinion to those who go [Chatam Sofer], and we follow the majority of opinions of those who go, for if we wait until everyone agrees, no matter will ever be completed and there will be the ruin of the collective [ibid.]. And if the people of the city selected representatives to look into the needs of the city, we follow the majority of opinions of the representatives [ibid.]. And in Yoreh Deah siman 256 it has been explained when one is obligated to give to the charity fund; see there.

One who has a courtyard in another city, they obligate him to dig with them pits, ditches, and caves, and the water channel, which are permanent matters. But regarding other matters, such as that which is for the guarding of the city, they do not obligate them. However, anyone who dwells in the city twelve months, or who bought a dwelling house therein—as he is considered immediately like a resident if he dwells there—gives with the people of the city for all matters necessary for the repair of the wall and the doors, and the wages of the horsemen, and repairs of the roads, and the wages of those who guard the city, and similar to these matters. And this which we said, that in twelve months he becomes like one of the people of the city and not before, this is specifically in an ordinary case where it is hidden from us if his intention is to establish himself forever; but if we knew that he wants to establish himself in the city, he is like the people of the city immediately. And some say that if he rented a dwelling house, as long as he rented it for twelve months, he is like the people of the city immediately even in an ordinary case, for presumably his intention is to settle. And also regarding one who bought a house, some say that we require that he bought it to settle there, but if he bought it only to dwell for a short time, he is not like the people of the city. And some say that by buying, he always becomes like the people of the city immediately. And according to all opinions, when a house fell to him by inheritance or as a gift, it is nothing unless it is known that his intention is to settle in the city or that he dwelt there twelve months, for since he did not exert himself to buy, there is no proof that his intention is to dwell there a long time. And all this is in a place where there is no custom regarding this, but in a place where there is a custom, we follow the custom. And this which we said, that in twelve months he becomes like the people of the city, this is specifically when he was delayed there not due to an accident; but if he was delayed due to an accident, such as if he or one of his relatives became ill, or similar to this, any matter where it appears that his delay was not because of his will to settle in the city, he is not like the people of the city even for a long time. However, if he profited there, he must give tax according to the matter of the profit, as I wrote in siman 156.

And some say that all this is regarding a fixed tax on the residents of the city, for which we require that he be like the permanent people of the city; but regarding a tax that is not fixed, such as when the ruler imposed some random tax, as soon as he rents a house he is obligated to pay, because for the most part, in such a tax the ruler of the city is not meticulous to know the permanent residents of the city, but rather according to appearances, from the multitude of people in the city, he imposes the tax upon them, and he creates an appearance like the rest of the city's inhabitants, and it can be said that the tax increases because of him. And some disagree and hold that the ruler never casts his eye except upon the permanent residents of the city. And know that all matters of taxes that have been explained, and also what will be explained regarding the law of talmidei chachamim who are exempt from tax, this is all when the ruler imposes upon the city to give such and such an amount; but if the tax is per capita, how does it concern the city who comes to settle in their city? However, when they collect from the collective of the city according to the per capita calculation, it returns to being like a general tax [it appears to me]. And so too, a talmid chacham is obligated in a per capita tax since his portion was imposed upon each individual [Nimukei Yosef, first chapter of Bava Batra]. And if there was always a fixed tax on the city, even if now the tax did not increase because of this, nevertheless, since he settled permanently in the city, he is obligated to give a portion [and what the Nimukei Yosef wrote there in the third chapter regarding pardakht, that it is specifically when it is not fixed, that is regarding pardakht, see there]. And one who stays in the city many years and they did not claim tax from him, it is not considered a waiver, and when they do claim it, he must pay even for the past, for in the silence of the public there is no waiver when he is obligated to pay according to the law, even if many years have passed.

Any tax that was imposed upon the residents of the city, a person cannot exempt himself by his departure from the city after the tax was imposed, and even when he departs to the Land of Israel he must give his portion [Sma]. And one of the great authorities wrote that if some tax was newly introduced within thirty days after his departure from the city, he must give toward this, and his reasoning appears to be that the minister certainly imposed it according to the assessment of the residents, and within thirty days it is unlikely to be known that this person traveled from the city and because of him the minister imposed an additional tax, and therefore he must give his portion. Our teacher, the Rema, wrote that even after they gave the minister their portion, if the minister denies it, they must return and give. Thus far his words. And its explanation is that if those departing from the city say they already gave the minister their portion prior to their departure from the city, if the minister denies it, they must give their portion [Darchei Moshe]. And if those departing have disputes with the residents of the city wherein there are contradictions between them, they must return to their place and litigate with them, for the community is always considered as the possessors, and the claimant follows the defendant [the Gra]. And if they practiced in another manner, everything is according to the custom.

When they collect from the people of the city to build a wall around the city, they collect according to the proximity of the houses to the wall, and everyone close to the wall gives more, for its primary purpose is because of bandits, and they require more protection than those on the inside. And some say that they collect according to wealth, for the primary intent of the bandits is for the wealth. However, they do not collect according to wealth alone, for certainly a wealthy person who is close is in more danger than a wealthy person who is far, and a wealthy person who is far is in more danger than a poor person who is close. Therefore, after they have divided it according to wealth, they also calculate which house is closer to the wall. How so? Two houses that are equal in proximity to each other and have equal wealth give equally. If one is close and one is far, the close one gives more. If one is wealthier and they are equal in proximity, the wealthier one gives more. If there is a house close to the wall and it has no wealth at all, and one is far and has wealth, they collect from the far one and collect nothing from the close one. If one is close and one is far, and the far one is wealthier than the close one, they give equally. All this is when there is peace in the land and there is fear of the government, where the wall is only because of bandits, and therefore those who are close are in more danger. But in a time of war, we do not care about the proximity of houses at all, for when the enemy prevails, they will enter the entire city and plunder it, and they collect only according to wealth. And if they come for matters of lives, they collect half according to souls and half according to wealth. And regarding the plundering of wealth, they collect only from money and movable property, for regarding houses and lands, pillage and plunder are not applicable. But if there is reason to fear the theft of houses and lands, and the burning and tearing down of houses, they collect according to all assets. All this was in ancient days, but now, even in days of war, the kings protect the residents so that no evil shall befall them, and certainly in a time of peace.

Everything that is collected according to wealth follows the majority of the wealth. Therefore, regarding opinions, the wealthy are considered the majority of opinions even though they are a minority of souls compared to the others, and the others cannot do anything without their knowledge. However, the wealthy also cannot do anything without the knowledge of the many, and they are considered as half and half and must compromise if there is any dispute between them [Sma]. Therefore, the author of the Terumat HaDeshen ruled regarding a community upon whom a tax was imposed and they selected five men to perform the assessment, and there were two wealthy men in the community and they wanted that among the five men two should be selected who have an affiliation with them, and the community did not want this; and he ruled that the law is with the wealthy, for since the majority of the five will not have an affiliation with them and two will have an affiliation, it will emerge more truthfully—and specifically that the two must be men of truth and not masters of schemes.

When they collect according to wealth, there is no distinction between his own wealth and the wealth of others that he deals with, since he profits from them. And even if they were accustomed not to give from this, they can nevertheless change and decree to give tax from them from this day forward. And some disagree and hold that one does not need to give from the wealth of others, for the minister only imposes tax according to their own wealth and not what is in their hands belonging to others. And if they are afraid that they are causing them an "evil eye" whereby the tax is increased upon them, they can tell the minister; and if he says he will not increase the tax because of this, then they have no loss. Our teacher, the Rema, wrote that the custom is like the first opinion, and it appears the reason is because the minister also does not know clearly their own wealth, but rather sees according to the commerce. And according to this, one who has an iska from another, the receiver shall give from half and the giver from half, since they divide the profit. And so too they must give tax from what a wife has of wealth that her husband has no authority over, in that he does not consume the fruits [Shach], and the wealth is involved in business; for if he consumes the fruits, he must give. And so too from what his minor sons and daughters have, for since their wealth is in business it increases the "eye," and the father does not receive the profit, they receive from them themselves. And from dowry money when it is in the hand of a trustee and is involved in business or in loans, they must give tax from them [Sma]. And one who has debts from others, if they are standing to be repaid, he gives from them; but wealth that requires litigation over them, even if he can extract them, he does not need to give anything from them now [ibid.], since it is not yet clear wealth. And so too wealth that he owes to others is deducted for him from the tax. And so too one does not need to give from interest that accrued on pledges as long as it was not added to the principal. And so too rent that has not yet come into the hand of the lessor, they do not give from them. And so too they do not give from money designated for a mitzvah or for tzedakah if he has no profit from them; but if he has profit, or for his children after him, he gives according to the benefit that exists in this money. And one who has a deposit in the hand of others and does not trade with them, some say that he is obligated to give tax from them even though he also gives in the place where he deposited them, for the minister does not care that he does not profit from them. And some disagree, holding that the minister only casts an eye upon wealth of commerce or loans, unless he is exceptionally wealthy, for then the eye of the ruler is upon him in every matter. And the Terumat HaDeshen wrote that the custom is like the first opinion [ibid.]. And according to all, if he had lands in another place, he does not give anything from them at all, for land is only liened to the minister under whose authority the land exists [the Gra].

It has already been explained in section 6 that from wealth that is not movable property one does not collect at all, and therefore from houses and land from which one does not profit, one does not need to give tax from them. However, if a person has two or three houses and dwells in one of them and rents out the rest, and likewise fields and vineyards from which he profits, their law is like merchandise and he must give tax from them, only not like wealth of commerce because in this the profit is small. And when they give tax from houses, every house that is more significant must give more because it creates more of an appearance; however, one must also calculate according to the income [it appears to me]. And in all this, one follows the custom. And if the wealthy men want to fix a tax on the houses in a place where they do not give, we do not listen to them. And just as they do not give from houses from which they do not profit, so too they do not give from household vessels and books and clothes. And that which our teacher, the Rema, wrote, that they give tax from jewelry but not as much as from other wealth, and there is no difference whether they are attached to clothes or not, and everything is according to the custom, thus far his words—this is when it is the way to profit from them, if some merchandise came to his hand cheaply he would sell them and profit from them [Levush]. However, when it is not the way of this man to do so, he does not need to give from this at all [it appears to me].

The tax is collected either according to an assessment by selected assessors who assess each individual, or according to an oath where each individual swears how much he possesses and gives according to the value of the tax due on his property, and this depends on the custom of the place. When they give according to an assessment, the one being assessed cannot say that the assessors erred, and likewise the community cannot say that they erred and assessed him too little, for the enactment was that as the assessment of the assessors is, so shall it stand, and they are not prophets to know the truth [Sma]. And if it were possible to say of them that they erred, no assessment would ever be finalized, provided that they assess faithfully without favoritism and without hatred; and one who does so, the Knower of Secrets will exact punishment from him. In a place where they give according to an oath, one can say that he erred, and even though there is a presumption that a person does not swear until he knows the truth, nevertheless, when he clarifies his words and provides a rationale for why he erred, they listen to him and reduce his tax. In a place where they give according to an oath and one says, "I do not wish to swear, and you may assess me as you please," some say that they do not listen to him and they can say, "We are unable to determine your assessment," and naturally when he says, "Assess me according to the largest value that appears to you," they do not compel him to swear [it appears to me]. Our teacher, the Rema, wrote: If they were initially accustomed to give according to an assessment, they may change and enact according to an oath, for they are like partners with one another in the business of taxes, such that each can compel his fellow to swear the oath of partners. Thus far his words. And all this was in ancient times, but now we have never heard of giving tax according to an oath.

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote that if they placed the tax upon each of them—what he shall give—and they began to collect from that time, it is like a debt upon each one; and even if he became poor afterward, he is obligated to give what they assessed upon him. And so too, if he was poor and became wealthy, they always follow the time of collection. Thus far his words. And it is not specifically that they began to collect, but rather such is the way of the matter, that they begin to collect immediately; but from the time of the assessment, it is like a complete debt. And also regarding the poor and the wealthy, they follow the time of the assessment [Taz]. However, one who came to the city between the time they became obligated in that tax—where they were already obligated in some debt to the ruler—and the time of the assessment, some say that he does not need to give a portion of this tax, since the community already became obligated while he was not here, and the community does not have the authority to stipulate against them that they should give. And some say that if that tax is for the benefit of those arriving, such as if the community is obligated from the beginning of the year to give throughout the year such and such an amount, they are obligated to give their portion even though they arrived after the beginning of the year [ibid.]. And all matters of taxes follow the fixed custom in the city that they have done so three times, and one is not overly exacting in matters of taxes.

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote: A community that lent to a ruler, and he said he would deduct it for them from tax matters, and afterward he did not want to and they despaired of the debt, and he died and his son rose in his place and deducted it for them—the community is like those who acquire from ownerless property and they do not need to pay a portion to those who were wealthy at the time of the loan and lost their assets. Thus far his words. Rather, they calculate based on the current tax. And even though it was explained in siman 98 that despair does not avail regarding a debt, this is because we say that this is not total despair; for so he explained in siman 262, section 5, that since every debt is a doubt whether it will be paid or not, therefore even if he said "Woe for the loss of money," it is not total despair. And this is specifically regarding an ordinary debt where it is not known clearly that it is lost, but in a case like this where the hand of the ruler is on the upper hand, it is total despair. And some disagree, saying that even this is not total despair, for it is common for the powerful to fall, as written in siman 111 ibid. And some disagree with the fundamental ruling and hold that regarding any debt despair does not avail, only in this case of the ruler, since he can assess taxes as he wishes, in this it is certainly despair and it is not in the category of a debt. And some say that despair does avail regarding a debt. And reason tends toward the view that despair does not avail regarding a debt, for even regarding theft and robbery we hold that despair does not effect acquisition, as written in siman 353, only regarding a lost object does despair avail because it came into his hand permissibly (Bava Kamma 66a) and the Torah permitted it to him. But regarding a debt that by law he is obligated to pay, it is no less than theft and robbery, and we say that the borrower will certainly exert himself to pay; and behold, regarding a lost object itself, if it came into his hand before despair, the despair does not avail as it is despair without knowledge, and all the more so regarding a debt. And how could despair avail for something that depends on the hand of others and they are obligated to pay? And even if he became poor, perhaps he will become wealthy, and if he became wicked, perhaps he will return in repentance (and from the third chapter of Gittin there is no proof, for there he does not need to receive it from the Kohen and the despair avails; and examine this carefully).

The Rishonim wrote that regarding everything they would libel against Israel, and even if they embitter and afflict them with suffering, they collect according to wealth, for the primary intent is for the money. And some disagree, holding that anything involving danger to life—even if they only decreed not to sell bread to Jews or forbade shechitah and the like—they collect according to souls. And this matter depends on the context, for libels are not equal; sometimes they are for the sake of money and sometimes for the sake of souls. And this is all in ancient days and not in our time, for the kings protect us from libels. And a group traveling in the desert who went astray and there is danger to life, they collect according to wealth and according to souls. And city guards who guard by themselves at night and reached a compromise with the ruler to give a fixed amount per year, they collect according to wealth, even though previously they all needed to guard equally, because the ruler compromised for money [Levush]. And specifically in such a case where they compromised with the ruler, but if the others guard by themselves and there is a group that hires others in their place to guard, it still rests upon the heads of the men and they collect from everyone equally. And in a place where they always hire guards, it is obvious that it is according to wealth in our locales, where the primary guarding is against thieves.

In a place where the residents of the city establish among themselves a teacher of children for Torah study, and the fathers of the children are unable to pay the tuition for their sons due to their poverty, and the community must provide their tuition—as is the case with the Talmud Torah in our countries—they collect according to wealth, for a greater obligation is cast upon the wealthy. And so too regarding the salary of the chazzan, and see Orach Chaim siman 53. And so too for the building of a beit knesset, they collect according to wealth. And for all the needs of the city, even though some of the people of the city do not need it—for example, a wedding house for grooms in a place where they practiced this, or a mikveh and the like, which the elderly do not need—nevertheless, they are obligated to give their portion since this is among the needs of the city. And this is like one who has a courtyard in another city, who must give toward the digging of pits for drinking water even though he does not drink from them [the Gra]. And so too one who has a place in a beit knesset, even though he does not pray there, nevertheless he must give toward all the repairs of the beit knesset and for all fixed matters, as I wrote in section 3 regarding the needs of the city. But for matters that are not fixed, he does not need to give, and it depends on the assessment of the beit din as to what are fixed matters and what are not fixed [it appears to me].

All things necessary for the guarding of the city are collected from all the people of the city, even from orphans, except for a talmid chacham, who does not require guarding as his Torah guards him, as it is written: "When you lie down, it shall watch over you." However, for the repair of the roads, the streets, and the water cisterns, they collect even from a talmid chacham. If all the people go out and repair them themselves, a talmid chacham does not go out with them, for it is a disgrace for him to demean himself before the am ha'aretz, and they do not collect from them even to hire others in their place, since they are not hiring when they are doing it themselves; see Yoreh Deah siman 243. If they were digging trenches for water for the fields of the city, they collect even from orphans and certainly from a talmid chacham, as it is a benefit for them that they may water their fields and vineyards from it. Therefore, if an event occurred such that the water did not come, they return to the orphans what they took from them, for it was revealed that it was a liability for them, and one may not disadvantage a person not in his presence, and minor orphans are considered as not in their presence. A talmid chacham is exempt from taxes as written in Yoreh Deah ibid. One is called a talmid chacham if his Torah is his craft; even if he has a craft or business to support himself for his livelihood and not to become wealthy, and at any time that he is free from his work or his business he returns to his study and studies constantly, he is called "his Torah is his craft" [Tur]. There are places where they are accustomed that the chazzan of the beit knesset is exempt from taxes, and it is proper to act so, and likewise all those who occupy themselves with the needs of a mitzvah. However, by the letter of the law, only a talmid chacham is exempt. If they hired him initially to be exempt from taxes, and at the conclusion of his term they hired him without specification, certainly they hired him upon the first condition, as written in siman 333. It has already been explained that this exemption of a talmid chacham from tax applies only to a general tax imposed upon the city, but if it was imposed upon every person per capita, even a talmid chacham is liable [Tur]. That which was explained regarding orphans, that when they did not find water they return to them what they took from them, the same applies to all needs for which they take from them; if that thing did not come to fruition, they return what they took from them, even though all the expenditures from the entire city were lost in this matter.

A person who is idle and has no business dealings in the city is nevertheless obligated in taxes, for he "creates an eye." Even when the townspeople interceded on his behalf—for example, when the tax collector came to collect the fixed law and imposed it upon the townspeople according to his estimation until his quota was met, and the townspeople said to him, "This person is idle and is not fit to pay tax," and because of this he exempted him and collected from them his portion which was diminished—he must pay them his portion that the collector imposed upon them when there are townspeople who are particular about this. For, in any case, he "created an eye" at the time the tax was imposed, and even though they interceded on his behalf, nevertheless, since they did not achieve a reduction of his portion from the city's total, but rather he imposed it upon them, why should they pay for him? However, if the collector exempted him on his own without the request of the townspeople and also without his request, even if he imposed his portion upon the city, they do not collect from him; since it was without exertion, it is with the help of Heaven and he has merited this. If he reduced his portion, in either case he is exempt. All this is when the minister's collector exempted him before he fixed the tax that the townspeople would give such-and-such; but after he fixed the tax and afterwards exempted him, he is obligated to give his portion to the community, for he was already obligated to them, and it is not in his power to exempt him unless he reduced his portion. And perhaps you will say: how can we know before the fixing of the tax if he reduced his portion or not? For example, when at the time he fixed the tax, the minister or his collector said, "The tax is such-and-such according to the city's calculation, but I am reducing a little because of this person." [It appears to me.] And this fact that an idle person is obligated in tax applies when he dwells in the city; but one who comes to the city by chance is not obligated in anything, since he does not profit there and also does not "create an eye" since he is not permanent in the city. And a businessman whom the minister forgave his portion of the taxes and reduced his portion from the community—if it was through his request, he must give the community his portion, for the entire community has the status of partners, and a partner does not divide from his partners without their knowledge, as is written in siman 178 regarding customs duties. And if he exempted him on his own, it belongs to him even after the fixing of the tax. For specifically regarding an idle person, if he reduced his portion he is exempt in any case since he does not profit in the city; but regarding a businessman, even when he reduced his portion by his request, it belongs to everyone, unless the minister exempted him on his own. And there are those who say that before the community has reached a settlement with the minister, the minister has no power to exempt one of them, for perhaps he burdens the others through this; and likewise he cannot lighten for one and burden another, or separate them from one another. But if they already reached a settlement with the minister, and he forgave one his portion and reduced this from the community, it is his, and he does not need to give to the community even when it was through his request. And the reason an idle person is preferred before the imposition of the tax is because presumably he does not burden others through this since he is an idle person, which is not the case with a businessman. And according to this, for this opinion, regarding an idle person one does not need to know if he reduced his portion as I have written, but rather presumably it is like a reduction of his portion. [It appears to me.] And after the imposition of the tax, both are equal according to this opinion: that if he reduced his portion, even a businessman is exempt, and if not, both are obligated. And one whom the minister exempted from taxes and arnona in an effective manner, nevertheless, for other needs of the city he is obligated to give, as is written regarding a Torah scholar. And an individual who gives his portion to the minister separately because of his craft or for another reason, nevertheless must give with the community unless the minister says, "I am separating him from the community and will collect from him separately," provided that he himself does not initiate a request for this from the minister or his agent. And even the "those who say" admit to this, for since he imposes upon him separately, it is evident that he will not burden the community on his account. [So it appears to me, for if not so, the Rema should have explained it.] And all that has been explained is regarding the general fixed tax; but regarding a tax that is not fixed, it is within the minister's power to separate them or join them as he wishes. and no individual or community has permission to cause the minister to join any community or separate them if the matter is harmful to others; and if they did so, they have the law of an informer. However, they are permitted to say, "We are few" or "lacking livelihood" and the like, to request mercy for themselves, and the minister shall do what he wishes, but not to cause damage to others.

The community are partners with one another regarding fixed taxes, but not regarding false accusations. If there was a false accusation against one person or against a portion of the community, others are not obligated to give to this person. Even if the false accusation was against all of them, but some of them fled or were exempted through their wisdom, they are exempt, since this is not a tax but merely a false accusation; and see what I wrote in siman 128. If it appears that the false accusation will spread to others as well, all are obligated to give. Even if a false accusation came upon one city, all the communities for whom there is a concern that, Heaven forbid, the cup shall pass over them as well, are obligated to give to this; so ruled our early teachers according to their time when false accusations were common, and so too now in the lands of Barbary. Members of a state who were partners in the payment of taxes, and afterwards the ruler gave a portion of the state to his son: if the tax comes into the hand of the son, they are separated from one another; but if the tax still comes to the old ruler, the partnership remains as it was at first, even though the son of the ruler governs a portion of them. One whom the ruler seized and who was forced to appease him with much money, and through this he exempted him from taxes, is exempt from giving with the community, since he exempted him on his own; and even according to the "there are those who say" in the previous section, since he took much money from him, certainly he will not make it heavy for the others on his account [it appears to me]. But if he serves the ruler and through this he exempted him, he is obligated to give his portion. A ruler who imposes money or another matter upon two or three people, and one has the power to intercede on behalf of one of them to rescue him from this and exempt him: if the matter is not certain that through the exemption of this one he will place another person in his stead, he is permitted to do so. But if it is certain that he will place another in his stead, or that he will impose it upon those remaining—for example, if he already specified them by name—it is forbidden for another person to intercede in this. But if he has not yet specified them by name and it is not known upon whom he will impose the matter—for example, if he commanded to perform a lottery or that he himself will choose after a time—it is possible to intercede so that he exempts Ploni from this, since they have not yet been specified [Shach, and proof from Mephibosheth]. There are those who say that if they needed to incur expenses so that the ruler would assist them with their promissory notes to collect them, those who do not have notes are exempt from giving toward this, and it is not similar to the needs of the city. A community that exempted one from taxes, he is exempt, since they accepted his portion upon themselves, and a waiver does not require a kinyan. Besides this, all matters of the community do not require a kinyan, for it is as if it were done in a beit din and there is no retracting from this [Levush]. However, the community can say that they only exempted him for a year and not forever, and they are believed in this; and see in siman 60 regarding the laws of community enactments and in siman 231 regarding the laws of the enactments of the city residents. If they exempted him for a fixed time and he died within the time, the heirs are obligated to pay from the time of his death, for they exempted him for whatever reason they had, but not his heirs, unless they explicitly stated also for the heirs or that they exempted these assets for such and such years; but if they exempted him, his heirs are not included, and similarly in other matters. It is found in the enactments of the early ones not to take a tallit or a book out of the synagogue without the permission of the owners, and books of the synagogue without the permission of the appointee; but to study there is permitted. Similarly, to wear the tallit of another occasionally is permitted even without knowledge, for a person is pleased that a mitzvah be performed with his property in such a minor matter. Nevertheless, to take it out of the synagogue without the knowledge of the owners is forbidden. It is further found in the enactments that one who does not bear the burden with the public—for example, if he is poor—should not be a gabbai, in order to remove himself from suspicion, lest they say he is concealing money since he is poor. Nevertheless, he can compel others who have the ability to give tax or tzedakah, even though he himself does not give, since he is under duress and the Merciful One exempts him. One who has a shop or commerce in another city where he does not dwell must pay tax, for the tax is from the money and not from the persons, and in the place where the money is, there is its obligation [our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in siman 156]; and similarly he must give toward all the needs of the community and all the needs of the city.