Translation:Shulchan Aruch/Choshen Mishpat/163

Paragraph 1- Residents of a city can force each other- the minority may even force the majority- to build a wall, doors and a crossbar for the city, to build a synagogue and to purchase scrolls of Torah, neviim and kesuvim to enable anyone from the public to be able to read from it if he wants to. ''The same applies to all the city needs. See Orach Chaim Siman 55 with respect to hiring a chazan for the people of the city, as well as Siman 53. The residents of the city can force each other to welcome guests, to distribute charity to them and to donate to the charity collection. See above Siman 4 and 7 with respect to residents of the city that have litigation with an individual whether they are able to judge and whether they are considered possessors. For hiring people to complete a minyan, see Orach Chaim, at the end of Siman 55. All the residents of the city are required to reimburse for expenses incurred in order to remove a snitch. In all public matters where people cannot agree, they should have everyone that pays taxes to agree to state their view for the sake of heaven, and they will follow the majority. If the minority refuses, the majority can force them, even using secular courts to remove money over this. They are required to pay their share. If one refuses to state his view, by cherem his view is void and we follow the majority who do state their view. See Yoreh Deah Siman 256 with respect to when someone is required to contribute to the charity collection.''

Paragraph 2- If someone has a courtyard in another city, the residents of that city can force him to dig pits of dirt, building-pits, caves and water channels. With respect to other matters, however, they cannot compel him. Anyone who lives in a city for 12 months or has purchased a residence, must contribute with the members of the city for the repair of the walls and doors, the wages for the riders and guards who watch the country and all similar items used to guard the city. ''These are all default rules. If they know he wants to immediately live permanently in the city, however, he has the status as a member of the city. There are those who say that if one rented a residence for 12 months he immediately has the status of a city resident. There are those who say that this is only where he acquired it to live there. There are those who say it applies even if he was just staying there. Everyone agrees that if one acquired it via inheritance or a gift, it is of no effect. Nevertheless, if there is a custom, we would follow the custom. There are those who say this only applies to an affixed tax, but if it is not affixed, as soon as he rents a house he is required to contribute because he looks the same as any other member of the city and it is possible that the tax will be increased because of him. There are those who disagree. This that living there for 12 months has an effect is only where he remained there not due to unavoidable matters out of his control. If he remained there due to unavoidable matters out of his control, however, such as where he got sick or something similar, his living there would not be of any effect. Nevertheless, if he turned a profit there he must pay taxes based on the amount he profited, as was explained above in Siman 156. If someone remained in the city for many years and they did not demand taxes from him, there is no waiver, and when they do make a claim he must pay retroactively. A person cannot avoid paying a tax that was placed on the city residents by leaving the city if it was placed before he left. Even if they already paid the tax to the official, if the official denies receiving it he must pay again. If there are disagreements between him and the city residents, he must go back to the city and litigate with them. If they have a different custom, we would follow the custom.''

Paragraph 3- When they collect for the wall from the city residents, they collect based on the proximity of the houses to the wall. Anyone who lives closer to the wall must contribute more. There are those who say they would collect based on means, and after they divided based on means, they would also collect more from those closer to the wall. How so? If two houses were of equal distance and they are of equal means, the would pay the same. If one of the houses was closer to the wall but did not have money and one was far and did have money, they would not collect anything from the closer one because he has nothing to concern himself with. ''Any time we collect based on means, we follow the majority of the money. The wealthy people who are smaller in amount would be considered the majority for such an item. Therefore, the Mahari ruled in a case where there were five individuals in one city, and two of them were powerful and wealthy brothers and they wanted to choose two who were like them when it comes to affixing a tax, that they were in the right.'' If two homes were of equal means, but one was far and one was close, the close one would give more than the far one. This is only true where there is peace in the land and fear of the governments. In a time of war where the governments are fighting each other, however, we do not concern ourselves with the proximity of the homes and we would only collect based on means. If intruders were coming for the lives of the residents, we would also collect based on the amount of persons. Half would be collected based on means and half would be collected based on amount of people. When we say based on means we refer to liquid money. S''imilarly, if a group travelling in the desert got lost and there is a life-threatening danger, they would consider the amount of people when they collect. Any time the gentiles are instigating the Jews to become apostates, there are those who say they would collect based on the Jews’ means, even if they were inflicting physical pain. There are those who disagree and hold that any time there is a life-threatening danger, we would collect based on persons, even if they just ordered not to sell bread to the Jews or they outlawed shechita or something similar. It seems to me to rule based on the specifics of the issue as it appears to the judges. If the guardians of the city who themselves guard the city at night have made an agreement with the ruler to provide a set amount of money per year, they would collect based on need, notwithstanding the fact that they originally need equal protection. This is only true in such a case. If the gentiles are still guarding and the Jews have hired two or three individuals to guard in their place, however, the fee is still placed on each individual and they would pay equally, regardless of whether they are poor or wealthy. When they collect based on means, there is no distinction between an individual’s own personal money and other’s money that he transacts with. Even if the custom was not to give based on such other money, they can change the custom and require him to give going forward. There are those who disagree and hold that one does not have to give based on other’s money. If they are concerned that it would create higher taxes, they should inform the king. The custom is like the first view. If one has iska funds from another in his possession, the recipient and donor must each pay half. Similarly, a person must give from that which his wife owns without him as well as what his minor sons or daughters own. If they originally had the practice to give based on an estimation, they have the right to change and implement with an oath that they all have the status of partners with each other who can have each other swear a partners-oath. If they all give with an oath and one resident says he does not want to swear but they should just estimate whatever they want, there are those who say we would not listen to him. Once they have evaluated the tax on each of them and began collecting, the money owed now has the status of a debt. Even if one were to subsequently become poor he would be required to give the amount set. Similarly, if he was poor and became rich, we always follow the time of collection. If one came to the city between the time the tax was obligated and the time of collection, however, there are those who say he would not be required to pay the taxes because they were already obligated and the public does not have the power to force him to contribute. There are those who say, however, that if the tax has a use for the new people coming, they would be required to pay their share. We follow the custom that has been set up in the city once they have done it three times. Even if it is an inferior custom, we are not overly concerned when it comes to tax matters. If the public lent money to an official and he told them to offset the debt from their taxes, he then did not want to offset and subsequently died and the public had given up collecting the debt, but the son who took over subtracted the debt from the taxes, it is as if they have acquired ownerless property and they do not have to pay back the portion of those individuals who were wealthy at the time of the loan but subsequently became poor. If someone is owed money on outstanding debts and is able to collect them, he must contribute taxes from those funds. Similarly, if one owed others money, we would subtract from his worth the amount he would need to pay. One is not required to give from the interest earned on collateral so long as it has not been converted with the principal. The same applies to rental payments that the owner has not yet received. Similarly, one does not give from money designated for a mitzvah or charity if he gets no benefit from the funds. If he or his children do get benefit from such funds, however, he would pay from the value of such benefit. If one has a deposit in another’s possession, and does not transact with it, there are those who say he is required to pay taxes from it, even if they already paid taxes on it in the place of deposit. There are those who disagree. Everyone agrees that if he one has real property in another location that he would not have pay anything from them. In a place where they give based on an evaluation, one cannot say they erred in the evaluation. If they give based on oath, however, one can say that they erred.'' They do not collect anything from money that is not liquid, however. ''This that one does not pay from real property is only with respect to homes and something similar where one does not turn a profit. If a person has two or three houses and lives in one of them and rents out the others, however, or if he has fields or vineyards used to make a profit or if he is involved in commerce, he must pay taxes from them, but not as much as he would from other money. When one gives from houses, the more prestigious and visible, the more he has to give. In all these cases we follow the custom. If the treasurer wants to affix a tax on houses in a case where they are not required to give, we would not listen to them. Just as one does not have to give from homes, so too does he not have to give from other vessels of the home or books. He does have to give from jewelry, however, but not as much as other money. There is no distinction between jewelry attached to clothing and those that are not attached. Everything is dependent on the custom.'' If there is a concern of theft from the courtyards or real property or from arson or destruction of the home, we would collect from all of them. ''In a place where the city residents appointed a schoolteacher, and the fathers of the children are unable to hire a teacher for their sons and the public has to pay the wages, we would collect based on means. The same applies for the wages of the chazan. See Orach Chaim 53:23. Similarly, when it comes to building a synagogue we collect based on means. All needs of the city, even if some of the residents don’t need it, such as a wedding hall, mikvah or something similar, must be paid by all of the residents.''

Paragraph 4- All matters that are needed for the protection of the city are collected from all the residents of the city, even orphans, with the exception of Torah scholars because Torah scholars do not need protection given that their Torah protects them. With respect to fixing the paths and roads, however, even the scholars must contribute. If the residents themselves go out and fix the roads, the scholars do not have to go with them because it is not the practice of scholars to degrade themselves with ignoramuses. See Yoreh Deah 243:1. If they were digging a river to bring water to the country, they would even collect from orphans because it is to their benefit to have the water irrigate their fields and vineyards. Therefore, if something occurred causing the water not to come, because the orphans did not benefit from it, we would return whatever was taken from them. The same applies to anything similar. Orphans do not have to contribute to the building of the synagogue, however, because they do not have the status of those who perform mitzvahs, as will be explained later in 290:15.

Paragraph 5-Torah scholars are exempt from taxes, as is explained in Tur Yoreh Deah Siman 243. ''There are those places that have the custom that the chazan of the synagogue is exempt from taxes. This is a proper custom, and this is the appropriate practice. By law, however, they are not exempt. If they originally hired him with a condition that he is exempt and later hired him without specification, they are certainly hiring him on the assumption of the original condition.''

Paragraph 6- If a person is idle and has no commerce in the city and the residents of the city talked him out of the tax, such as where the tax collector comes to collect the affixed amount and he places an amount on him based on their estimation and the city residents tell the tax collector that this person is idle and should not have to pay taxes, and because of this the collector exempted him and collected his share from the others, the individual must pay back his portion that was put on the others. If he exempted himself, however, he would be exempt from paying back even though he placed his share on the other residents of the city. ''This that an idle person is required to pay taxes is only where he lives in the city. If one happens to be in the city, however, he would not be required to pay anything given that he has not turned a profit there. This is all where they exempt him before they affixed the tax. If they affixed the tax on the city residents and they then exempt the idle resident, however he would be required to pay his share. If the government official waived the tax for him and it came at his request, he must pay his share to the public. If the official exempted him on his own, however, it belongs to him. There are those who say that prior to an individual compromising with the official, the official has no power to exempt any one of them, to put a lower burden on one at the expense of the others or to separate the obligations from each other. Once they have compromised with the official and he was waived one person’s portion, however, such person would be able to keep his money and not have to contribute to the public, even if it was done at his request. If the king or government official exempted someone from head-taxes or property taxes, he would still not be exempt from other city needs and he would be required to contribute to all the other needs of the city. If one contributed individually to the king he would still be required to contribute with the public. The public are all partners with each other on fixed taxes, but they are not partners on penalties. If the ruler has implemented a penalty on some of them, the others not required to contribute, even if the penalty was originally on all of them and some of them fled or wisely obtained an exemption. See above in Siman 128. If a penalty is placed on a city, all the congregations that have the concern that the penalty will be imposed on them are required to contribute. When it comes to a tax that is not set, the king or ruler has the ability to separate or combine those who have to give based on what they want. No individual or congregation has the right to cause the king to combine a certain congregation or separate them if it will result in harm to others. If they did such a thing they would have the status of a snitch. They are permitted to say “we are a small amount of people” or something similar, however, and the king will do what he wants. If the people of the country were partners in the contribution of taxes, and the king subsequently gave some of the country to his son and the tax goes to the king’s son, the two parts of the country are now separated. If the tax still goes to the king, the partnership remains intact as it was originally. If the government official seized an individual and required he give a lot of money and thereby be exempt from paying taxes, he would be exempt from contributing with the public. If he works for the official and thereby is exempt from taxes, however, he is required to contribute as was explained. There are those who say that if they were required to incur expenses for the government official to help them with their loan documents, those individuals that do not transact in the documents would not be required to contribute. See above at the end of seif 3 in this Siman. If the public exempted an individual from taxes, he would be exempt. No kinyan is required for matters of the public. They can say that they only exempted him for one year, however. See later at the end of Siman 231 with respect to regulations by the congregation and people of the city. There is an ancient regulation found that one cannot remove a talis or book from the synagogue without the owner’s permission. If one does not participate with the rest of the public in carrying the yoke, he may still force others but cannot be in charge of collecting.''