Communal Responsibility - Revision history

Maharikorkus at 15:27, 6 September 2024

2024-09-06T15:27:55Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:27, 6 September 2024
Line 109:		Line 109:
	This tshuva of the Maharik is in contradiction to the Maharik's ruling in the Regensburg case. The Maharik in the Regensburg case said that anyone at risk of danger must pay. In this case, the Maharik said that only those who caused the expulsion must pay.		This tshuva of the Maharik is in contradiction to the Maharik's ruling in the Regensburg case. The Maharik in the Regensburg case said that anyone at risk of danger must pay. In this case, the Maharik said that only those who caused the expulsion must pay.

	Among the earliest to spot this contradiction was the Chacham Tzvi, who concluded that this Maharik should be understood as being the primary ruling, and a repudiation of his own ruling in the Regensburg case.<ref>Shut Chacham Tzvi 132</ref>		Among the earliest to spot this contradiction was the Chacham Tzvi, who concluded that this Maharik should be understood as being the primary ruling, and a repudiation of his own ruling in the Regensburg case.<ref>Shut Chacham Tzvi 132</ref>

			The Admat Kodesh argues that the teshuvot of the Maharik must be distinguished by nature of the respective danger. In the Regesnsburg case, "the false accusation that they accused was a case of danger of death were they not to have spent money, as in the case of anti-semitism, and so is found until this very day, that they accuse them and they endanger them in them I the matter." In the case of the Maharik and the Duke (Maharik 124), the Admat Kodesh the danger was only financial. The Duke wanted money out his greed for the wealth of the Jewish communtiy. Therefore the Maharik only obligated the asset holders that the Duke knew about. The Ducal slander was with specific intent, squeezing money out of the Jews of Savoy. Hence, the Maharik limits obligation. In contrast, in the Regensburg case, the accusation was a general antisemitism- hence all Jews in the vicinity must pay to prevent the libel from spreading.<ref>Shut Admat Kodesh 1 Choshen Mishpat 72</ref>

	=== Dispute with the Rashba ===		=== Dispute with the Rashba ===

Maharikorkus: /* Dispute with the Rashba */

2024-08-22T22:09:28Z

Dispute with the Rashba

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:09, 22 August 2024
Line 112:		Line 112:

	=== Dispute with the Rashba ===		=== Dispute with the Rashba ===
			The Rashba ruled on a similar case to the Maharik. The Rashba was asked about a situation where two Jews of Marseille were accused of putting on an anti-Christian Purim Play. The nobleman of Marseille fined the collective Jewish community as punishment. The Rashba said that the two Jews who had allegedly performed the play were exempt from compensating the community for the immense sum. The Rasha premised this ruling on the idea that the two Jews were not liable for causing the community to be fined.

			However, according to the ruling of the Maharik in the Reginsburg case, anyone at potential risk of danger have to compensate their saviors. The Rashba's two Jewish actors were at risk of harm were it not for the community paying the fine.

	== Similar Opinions to the Maharik ==		== Similar Opinions to the Maharik ==

Maharikorkus: /* Explanations of the Maharik's Ruling */

2024-08-22T22:02:41Z

Explanations of the Maharik's Ruling

Maharikorkus: /* The Maharik Himself- Contradiction */

2024-08-22T21:54:27Z

The Maharik Himself- Contradiction

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:54, 22 August 2024
Line 99:		Line 99:

	=== The Maharik Himself- Contradiction ===		=== The Maharik Himself- Contradiction ===
	Among the opponents of the Maharik seems to be the Maharik. In a different tshuva (124), the Maharik was asked to decide a tax case. The Duke of Savoy began to expel the Jews of Savoy.The Jewish community paid off the Duke to prevent the expulsion, and the community in turn taxed its residents to collect the sum. Some property of a nonresident was in one of the houses of the Jews who would have otherwise been expelled. The Jewish community demanded that the nonresident pay the tax, since the nonresident's property would have lost had the Jews been expelled.		Among the opponents of the Maharik seems to be the Maharik. In a different tshuva (124), the Maharik was asked to decide a tax case.<ref>Shut Maharik Shoresh 124</ref> The Duke of Savoy began to expel the Jews of Savoy.The Jewish community paid off the Duke to prevent the expulsion, and the community in turn taxed its residents to collect the sum. Some property of a nonresident was in one of the houses of the Jews who would have otherwise been expelled. The Jewish community demanded that the nonresident pay the tax, since the nonresident's property would have lost had the Jews been expelled.

	The Maharik said that the nonresident was exempt from paying the tax. The Maharik supported his ruling with the gemara's case of jettisoning. The Gemara says that in a case where jettisoning is required, all passengers with cargo jettison in proportion to the weight of cargo they have brought. If a passenger has cargo that weighs ten percent of the total cargo-weight, the passenger is required to throw off ten percent of the cargo which is jettisoned. After the fact, the cargo owners who didn't throw over their cargo must compensate cargo owners who threw off more of their cargo than required. Passengers who have no cargo on board do not need to compensate the cargo owners- because only people who are causes of the danger must pay. The heavy cargo is the cause of the danger which required jettisoning.		The Maharik said that the nonresident was exempt from paying the tax. The Maharik supported his ruling with the gemara's case of jettisoning. The Gemara says that in a case where jettisoning is required, all passengers with cargo jettison in proportion to the weight of cargo they have brought. If a passenger has cargo that weighs ten percent of the total cargo-weight, the passenger is required to throw off ten percent of the cargo which is jettisoned. After the fact, the cargo owners who didn't throw over their cargo must compensate cargo owners who threw off more of their cargo than required. Passengers who have no cargo on board do not need to compensate the cargo owners- because only people who are causes of the danger must pay. The heavy cargo is the cause of the danger which required jettisoning.

	The Maharik ~~says that~~		The Maharik applies the cargo principle in this case. All inhabitants of the city are "causes" of the potential expulsion. The nonresident was not a cause of the "potential expulsion," and hence is not responsible for the tax imposed to escape the expulsion.

	~~=== Dispute with~~ the ~~Rashba ===~~		This tshuva of the Maharik is in contradiction to the Maharik's ruling in the Regensburg case. The Maharik in the Regensburg case said that anyone at risk of danger must pay. In this case, the Maharik said that only those who caused the expulsion must pay.

	~~=== Challenge~~ of the ~~Masah Melech ===~~		Among the earliest to spot this contradiction was the Chacham Tzvi, who concluded that this Maharik should be understood as being the primary ruling, and a repudiation of his own ruling in the Regensburg case.<ref>Shut Chacham Tzvi 132</ref>

	=== ~~Shagat Aryeh's Attack~~ ===		=== Dispute with the Rashba ===

	== Similar Opinions to the Maharik ==		== Similar Opinions to the Maharik ==

Maharikorkus: /* The Maharik Himself- Contradiction */

2024-08-22T21:42:46Z

The Maharik Himself- Contradiction

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:42, 22 August 2024
Line 99:		Line 99:

	=== The Maharik Himself- Contradiction ===		=== The Maharik Himself- Contradiction ===
			Among the opponents of the Maharik seems to be the Maharik. In a different tshuva (124), the Maharik was asked to decide a tax case. The Duke of Savoy began to expel the Jews of Savoy.The Jewish community paid off the Duke to prevent the expulsion, and the community in turn taxed its residents to collect the sum. Some property of a nonresident was in one of the houses of the Jews who would have otherwise been expelled. The Jewish community demanded that the nonresident pay the tax, since the nonresident's property would have lost had the Jews been expelled.

			The Maharik said that the nonresident was exempt from paying the tax. The Maharik supported his ruling with the gemara's case of jettisoning. The Gemara says that in a case where jettisoning is required, all passengers with cargo jettison in proportion to the weight of cargo they have brought. If a passenger has cargo that weighs ten percent of the total cargo-weight, the passenger is required to throw off ten percent of the cargo which is jettisoned. After the fact, the cargo owners who didn't throw over their cargo must compensate cargo owners who threw off more of their cargo than required. Passengers who have no cargo on board do not need to compensate the cargo owners- because only people who are causes of the danger must pay. The heavy cargo is the cause of the danger which required jettisoning.

			The Maharik says that

	=== Dispute with the Rashba ===		=== Dispute with the Rashba ===

Maharikorkus at 15:46, 18 August 2024

2024-08-18T15:46:26Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:46, 18 August 2024
Line 1:		Line 1:
	Halacha places high importance on a community's responsibility to one another. A community is halachically obligated to fund communal needs. These needs include security needs; a community is required to build a wall and gates. These needs also include ~~religous~~ needs; a community is required to build a synagogue and ensure that is well stocked with a sefer Torah and seforim.<ref>All of this from Shulchan Aruch CM 163:1</ref>		Halacha places high importance on a community's responsibility to one another. A community is halachically obligated to fund communal needs. These needs include security needs; a community is required to build a wall and gates. These needs also include religious needs; a community is required to build a synagogue and ensure that is well stocked with a sefer Torah and seforim.<ref>All of this from Shulchan Aruch CM 163:1</ref> The community is mandated to build these structures even if a majority does not want them- all that is necessary is for one member of the community to ask for them.<ref>Rama CM 163:1</ref>

	== Rationales behind Communal Responsibility ==		== Rationales behind Communal Responsibility ==

			# Chazal decreed that a community has certain security and spiritual responsibilities.<ref>Teshuva of Sma printed in Sefer Zikaron leMaran Grib Zolti p 325

			The Sma argues that the list given by chazal is a set one. in all cases not listed by chazal as being necessary the community can only mandate action on a majority basis. This is in contrast to the Netivot- who views the list as depending on a community changing needs</ref>
			# If a group of people have a shared need- they are required to come together and accomplish it.<ref>Netivot Hamishpat Biurim 196:3, Mishpetei Uziel, Volume IV, Choshen Mishpat 3:14

			This answer argues that obligation does not stem from any decree of chazal. This answer also does not view a community as being different than any other group of people- this answer instead views a community as being merely a big partnership with its own set of needs.</ref>

	== Extent of Communal Responsibility ==		== Extent of Communal Responsibility ==
Line 73:		Line 80:
	This ruling of the Rama flatly contradicts the Rama's citation of the Maharik. In the Maharik case neither condition was applicable		This ruling of the Rama flatly contradicts the Rama's citation of the Maharik. In the Maharik case neither condition was applicable

	# The ~~Communinity~~ of Regignsburg spent no more on behalf of the other communities		# The Community of Regignsburg spent no more on behalf of the other communities
	# The Community of Reginsburg paid with intent to save itself		# The Community of Reginsburg paid with intent to save itself

Maharikorkus: /* Similar Opinions to the Maharik */

2024-08-18T14:04:01Z

Similar Opinions to the Maharik

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:04, 18 August 2024
Line 45:		Line 45:
	# If there is a danger that presently is harming A, and if not resolved will harm A, and from there harm B		# If there is a danger that presently is harming A, and if not resolved will harm A, and from there harm B
	# Both A and B must jointly pay to prevent the danger- since both are at risk		# Both A and B must jointly pay to prevent the danger- since both are at risk
	## The Maharik proves this from the gutter case ~~ofBava~~ Metzia 108a.<ref>The Shagat Aryeh (his comments on the Maharik are printed in the back of the Machon Oraita 1988 edition of Shut Maharik) says that the reason for the obligation of the city residents to assist the downstream inhabitants in gutter repair is for a different reason. The city residents harm the resident downstream if the gutter is not repaired, since all the waste will gather on the downstream. Therefore, the city participates in gutter repair not because the city is at risk- but rather because the city is the malefactor. This reading of the Shagat Aryeh removes this Gemara in Bava Metzia as being a proof for the Maharik</ref>		## The Maharik proves this from the gutter case of Bava Metzia 108a.<ref>The Shagat Aryeh (his comments on the Maharik are printed in the back of the Machon Oraita 1988 edition of Shut Maharik) says that the reason for the obligation of the city residents to assist the downstream inhabitants in gutter repair is for a different reason. The city residents harm the resident downstream if the gutter is not repaired, since all the waste will gather on the downstream. Therefore, the city participates in gutter repair not because the city is at risk- but rather because the city is the malefactor. This reading of the Shagat Aryeh removes this Gemara in Bava Metzia as being a proof for the Maharik</ref>
	# This is so even if the risk is not certain because all risks of danger are considered certain risks		# This is so even if the risk is not certain because all risks of danger are considered certain risks
	## The Maharik proves this argument Bava Batra 8b- since orphans are given a wide series of tax exemptions, but are nevertheless required to pay for scouts lest an invader, come- that indicates potential danger is a source of obligation.<ref>The Masah Melech (2:4.4) is not impressed by the Maharik's proof. Orphans are obligated in taxes that relate to protection. Even if that protection is for an unlikely scenario, this does not mean that orphans only pay taxes for certain dangers. The Maharik spins this assumption out of nowhere		## The Maharik proves this argument Bava Batra 8b- since orphans are given a wide series of tax exemptions, but are nevertheless required to pay for scouts lest an invader, come- that indicates potential danger is a source of obligation.<ref>The Masah Melech (2:4.4) is not impressed by the Maharik's proof. Orphans are obligated in taxes that relate to protection. Even if that protection is for an unlikely scenario, this does not mean that orphans only pay taxes for certain dangers. The Maharik spins this assumption out of nowhere
Line 55:		Line 55:
	The Maharik is assuming that the Gemara formally exempts orphans from taxation and only makes them liable for benefit they receive. Hence, the Maharik sees orphan's need to pay for scouts, as proof that protection against an uncertain menace is a benefit.		The Maharik is assuming that the Gemara formally exempts orphans from taxation and only makes them liable for benefit they receive. Hence, the Maharik sees orphan's need to pay for scouts, as proof that protection against an uncertain menace is a benefit.

	brings a different line of attack- the fact that a city has scouts watching for raiders does not prove that we are extra strict in being safe against minor threats. You only have scout watching if there is in fact a risk. Further, a big city is at a high risk of being attacked by invaders, so having scouts isn't exactly a crazy thing</ref>		The Mishpatei Shmuel also brings a different line of attack- the fact that a city has scouts watching for raiders does not prove that we are extra strict in being safe against minor threats. You only have scout watching if there is in fact a risk. Further, a big city is at a high risk of being attacked by invaders, so having scouts isn't exactly a crazy thing</ref>
	## The Maharik also proves this from Bava Batra 7b- we force all inhabitants of a city to contribute to build a wall out of concern for potential danger.<ref>This argument of the Maharik is bolstered by the context of the Gemara. The Mishna and Gemara in Bava Batra 7b quote a tannaic dispute about the obligation to build a wall. The Tanna Kamma of the Mishna explains that all cities are required to build a wall, whereas Rabban Shimon Ben Gamliel insists that only cities on the border have to build a wall since they are at certain risk of raid. The Gemara explains the opinion of the Tanna kama that "sometimes raiders come." This formulation of the Tanna Kamma implies that we are concerned about danger no matter the uncertain nature</ref> We force even those who are not inhabitants of the city but own property in the city, because their property is subject to danger. This implies that merely being subject to shared danger is the source of the obligation to pay, not a preexisting relationship.<ref>The Masah Melech (2:4.4) rejects this argument. He argues that inhabitants in a city are obligated in the expenses for a wall out of their joint state partnership. This state of partnership does not exist in the Maharik's case, where the case, where the communities are not joined into a wider community. The Masah Melech rejects the attempt of the Maharik to pass off the property owner point as a proof that anyone affected by a danger must contribute- the property owner is himself a resident in some respects. Even though the property owner does not live in the city, his property gains value as the city prospers, and hence he is a partner in the city.		## The Maharik also proves this from Bava Batra 7b- we force all inhabitants of a city to contribute to build a wall out of concern for potential danger.<ref>This argument of the Maharik is bolstered by the context of the Gemara. The Mishna and Gemara in Bava Batra 7b quote a tannaic dispute about the obligation to build a wall. The Tanna Kamma of the Mishna explains that all cities are required to build a wall, whereas Rabban Shimon Ben Gamliel insists that only cities on the border have to build a wall since they are at certain risk of raid. The Gemara explains the opinion of the Tanna kama that "sometimes raiders come." This formulation of the Tanna Kamma implies that we are concerned about danger no matter the uncertain nature</ref> We force even those who are not inhabitants of the city but own property in the city, because their property is subject to danger. This implies that merely being subject to shared danger is the source of the obligation to pay, not a preexisting relationship.<ref>The Masah Melech (2:4.4) rejects this argument. He argues that inhabitants in a city are obligated in the expenses for a wall out of their joint state partnership. This state of partnership does not exist in the Maharik's case, where the case, where the communities are not joined into a wider community. The Masah Melech rejects the attempt of the Maharik to pass off the property owner point as a proof that anyone affected by a danger must contribute- the property owner is himself a resident in some respects. Even though the property owner does not live in the city, his property gains value as the city prospers, and hence he is a partner in the city.

Maharikorkus: /* Explanations of the Maharik's Ruling */

2024-08-18T13:52:08Z

Explanations of the Maharik's Ruling

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:52, 18 August 2024
Line 56:		Line 56:

	brings a different line of attack- the fact that a city has scouts watching for raiders does not prove that we are extra strict in being safe against minor threats. You only have scout watching if there is in fact a risk. Further, a big city is at a high risk of being attacked by invaders, so having scouts isn't exactly a crazy thing</ref>		brings a different line of attack- the fact that a city has scouts watching for raiders does not prove that we are extra strict in being safe against minor threats. You only have scout watching if there is in fact a risk. Further, a big city is at a high risk of being attacked by invaders, so having scouts isn't exactly a crazy thing</ref>
	## The Maharik also proves this from Bava Batra 7b- we force all inhabitants of a city to contribute to build a wall out of concern for potential danger. We force even those who are not inhabitants of the city but own property in the city, because their property is subject to danger. This implies that merely being subject to shared danger is the source of the obligation to pay, not a preexisting relationship.<ref>The Masah Melech (2:4.4) rejects this argument. He argues that inhabitants in a city are obligated in the expenses for a wall out of their joint state partnership. This state of partnership does not exist in the Maharik's case, where the case, where the communities are not joined into a wider community. The Masah Melech rejects the attempt of the Maharik to pass off the property owner point as a proof that anyone affected by a danger must contribute- the property owner is himself a resident in some respects. Even though the property owner does not live in the city, his property gains value as the city prospers, and hence he is a partner in the city. </ref>		## The Maharik also proves this from Bava Batra 7b- we force all inhabitants of a city to contribute to build a wall out of concern for potential danger.<ref>This argument of the Maharik is bolstered by the context of the Gemara. The Mishna and Gemara in Bava Batra 7b quote a tannaic dispute about the obligation to build a wall. The Tanna Kamma of the Mishna explains that all cities are required to build a wall, whereas Rabban Shimon Ben Gamliel insists that only cities on the border have to build a wall since they are at certain risk of raid. The Gemara explains the opinion of the Tanna kama that "sometimes raiders come." This formulation of the Tanna Kamma implies that we are concerned about danger no matter the uncertain nature</ref> We force even those who are not inhabitants of the city but own property in the city, because their property is subject to danger. This implies that merely being subject to shared danger is the source of the obligation to pay, not a preexisting relationship.<ref>The Masah Melech (2:4.4) rejects this argument. He argues that inhabitants in a city are obligated in the expenses for a wall out of their joint state partnership. This state of partnership does not exist in the Maharik's case, where the case, where the communities are not joined into a wider community. The Masah Melech rejects the attempt of the Maharik to pass off the property owner point as a proof that anyone affected by a danger must contribute- the property owner is himself a resident in some respects. Even though the property owner does not live in the city, his property gains value as the city prospers, and hence he is a partner in the city.
	### This fact is crucial, since the other ~~cities~~ of Germany do not have a formal relationship besides their shared country
			The Mahari Bruna (268), a contemporary of the Maharik, records a neat formulation that resolves the Masah Melech's rejection.

			The Mahari Bruna says that "in slanders not relating to money, even in one city, all the countries are in dangers, as was proved, as a result of our sinfulness in the country of Silesia. We see that all of the country is like one city." The Mahari Bruna asserts that the reason that a city builds a wall is because of shared danger, and that in cases of libel, "the country is like one city"

			In contrast the Maseh Melech views the obligation to build a wall as an inherently city obligation. </ref>
			### This fact is crucial, since the other Jewish communities of Germany do not have a formal relationship besides their shared country

	== Explanations of the Maharik's Ruling ==		== Explanations of the Maharik's Ruling ==

Maharikorkus: /* Premises of the Maharik's Argument */

2024-08-16T19:14:26Z

Premises of the Maharik's Argument

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:14, 16 August 2024
Line 45:		Line 45:
	# If there is a danger that presently is harming A, and if not resolved will harm A, and from there harm B		# If there is a danger that presently is harming A, and if not resolved will harm A, and from there harm B
	# Both A and B must jointly pay to prevent the danger- since both are at risk		# Both A and B must jointly pay to prevent the danger- since both are at risk
	## The Maharik proves this from ~~Bava~~ Metzia 108a ~~and~~ the gutter ~~case~~		## The Maharik proves this from the gutter case ofBava Metzia 108a.<ref>The Shagat Aryeh (his comments on the Maharik are printed in the back of the Machon Oraita 1988 edition of Shut Maharik) says that the reason for the obligation of the city residents to assist the downstream inhabitants in gutter repair is for a different reason. The city residents harm the resident downstream if the gutter is not repaired, since all the waste will gather on the downstream. Therefore, the city participates in gutter repair not because the city is at risk- but rather because the city is the malefactor. This reading of the Shagat Aryeh removes this Gemara in Bava Metzia as being a proof for the Maharik</ref>
	# This is so even if the risk is not certain because all risks of danger are considered certain risks		# This is so even if the risk is not certain because all risks of danger are considered certain risks
	## The Maharik proves this argument Bava Batra 8b- since orphans are given a wide series of tax exemptions, but are nevertheless required to pay for scouts lest an invader, come- that indicates potential danger is a source of obligation.<ref>The Masah Melech (2:4.4) is not impressed by the Maharik's proof. Orphans are obligated in taxes that relate to protection. Even if that protection is for an unlikely scenario, this does not mean that orphans only pay taxes for certain dangers. The Maharik spins this assumption out of nowhere		## The Maharik proves this argument Bava Batra 8b- since orphans are given a wide series of tax exemptions, but are nevertheless required to pay for scouts lest an invader, come- that indicates potential danger is a source of obligation.<ref>The Masah Melech (2:4.4) is not impressed by the Maharik's proof. Orphans are obligated in taxes that relate to protection. Even if that protection is for an unlikely scenario, this does not mean that orphans only pay taxes for certain dangers. The Maharik spins this assumption out of nowhere

Maharikorkus: /* Premises of the Maharik's Argument */

2024-08-16T19:04:39Z

Premises of the Maharik's Argument

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:04, 16 August 2024
Line 47:		Line 47:
	## The Maharik proves this from Bava Metzia 108a and the gutter case		## The Maharik proves this from Bava Metzia 108a and the gutter case
	# This is so even if the risk is not certain because all risks of danger are considered certain risks		# This is so even if the risk is not certain because all risks of danger are considered certain risks
	## The Maharik proves this argument Bava Batra 8b- since orphans are given a wide series of tax exemptions, but are nevertheless required to pay for scouts lest an invader, come- that indicates potential danger is a source of obligation.<ref>The Masah Melech (2:4.4) is not impressed by the Maharik's proof. Orphans are obligated in taxes that relate to protection. Even if that protection is for an unlikely scenario, this does not mean that orphans only pay taxes for certain dangers. The Maharik spins this assumption out of nowhere</ref>		## The Maharik proves this argument Bava Batra 8b- since orphans are given a wide series of tax exemptions, but are nevertheless required to pay for scouts lest an invader, come- that indicates potential danger is a source of obligation.<ref>The Masah Melech (2:4.4) is not impressed by the Maharik's proof. Orphans are obligated in taxes that relate to protection. Even if that protection is for an unlikely scenario, this does not mean that orphans only pay taxes for certain dangers. The Maharik spins this assumption out of nowhere

			Shut Mishpatei Shmuel (96) brings a similar objection to the Maseh Melech. Why are we assuming that we can comparing an orphan who is a citizen to someone who is not at all a citizen. An orphan is obligated to pay taxes- someone who does not live in said city has no such obligations. The Maharik seems to view an orphan's obligation to pay for defense not as stemming from a formal tax, but rather compensation to the city for benefit

			This in turn turns on how to understand the way the Gemara exempts orphans from some taxation. The Gemara says that orphans only pay taxes on what gives them benefit; since, lacking a parent, they lack the legal ability to forgive their money. The Gemara assumes that a resident of a city who pays taxes for what they don't need, thereby forgives the city for taking the money.

			The Maharik is assuming that the Gemara formally exempts orphans from taxation and only makes them liable for benefit they receive. Hence, the Maharik sees orphan's need to pay for scouts, as proof that protection against an uncertain menace is a benefit.

			brings a different line of attack- the fact that a city has scouts watching for raiders does not prove that we are extra strict in being safe against minor threats. You only have scout watching if there is in fact a risk. Further, a big city is at a high risk of being attacked by invaders, so having scouts isn't exactly a crazy thing</ref>
	## The Maharik also proves this from Bava Batra 7b- we force all inhabitants of a city to contribute to build a wall out of concern for potential danger. We force even those who are not inhabitants of the city but own property in the city, because their property is subject to danger. This implies that merely being subject to shared danger is the source of the obligation to pay, not a preexisting relationship.<ref>The Masah Melech (2:4.4) rejects this argument. He argues that inhabitants in a city are obligated in the expenses for a wall out of their joint state partnership. This state of partnership does not exist in the Maharik's case, where the case, where the communities are not joined into a wider community. The Masah Melech rejects the attempt of the Maharik to pass off the property owner point as a proof that anyone affected by a danger must contribute- the property owner is himself a resident in some respects. Even though the property owner does not live in the city, his property gains value as the city prospers, and hence he is a partner in the city. </ref>		## The Maharik also proves this from Bava Batra 7b- we force all inhabitants of a city to contribute to build a wall out of concern for potential danger. We force even those who are not inhabitants of the city but own property in the city, because their property is subject to danger. This implies that merely being subject to shared danger is the source of the obligation to pay, not a preexisting relationship.<ref>The Masah Melech (2:4.4) rejects this argument. He argues that inhabitants in a city are obligated in the expenses for a wall out of their joint state partnership. This state of partnership does not exist in the Maharik's case, where the case, where the communities are not joined into a wider community. The Masah Melech rejects the attempt of the Maharik to pass off the property owner point as a proof that anyone affected by a danger must contribute- the property owner is himself a resident in some respects. Even though the property owner does not live in the city, his property gains value as the city prospers, and hence he is a partner in the city. </ref>
	### This fact is crucial, since the other cities of Germany do not have a formal relationship besides their shared country		### This fact is crucial, since the other cities of Germany do not have a formal relationship besides their shared country

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:02, 22 August 2024
Line 43:		Line 43:
	Given the wide scope of the Maharik's arguments- I have restated a bullet point order of his assumptions so as to provide an easy summary.		Given the wide scope of the Maharik's arguments- I have restated a bullet point order of his assumptions so as to provide an easy summary.

	Here is a summary of the Maharik's assumption on ~~Realia~~.		Here is a summary of the Maharik's assumption on the realia.

	# The Blood libel in the community of Regensberg can be resolved by the Jews of Regensburg arranging a payout with the local government there		# The Blood libel in the community of Regensberg can be resolved by the Jews of Regensburg arranging a payout with the local government there
Line 52:		Line 52:
	# If there is a danger that presently is harming A, and if not resolved will harm A, and from there harm B		# If there is a danger that presently is harming A, and if not resolved will harm A, and from there harm B
	# Both A and B must jointly pay to prevent the danger- since both are at risk		# Both A and B must jointly pay to prevent the danger- since both are at risk
	## The Maharik proves this from the gutter case of Bava Metzia 108a.<ref>The Shagat Aryeh (his comments on the Maharik are printed in the back of the Machon Oraita 1988 edition of Shut Maharik) says that the reason for the obligation of the city residents to assist the downstream inhabitants in gutter repair is for a different reason. The city residents harm the resident downstream if the gutter is not repaired, since all the waste will gather on the downstream. Therefore, the city participates in gutter repair not because the city is at risk- but rather because the city is the malefactor. This reading of the Shagat Aryeh removes this Gemara in Bava Metzia as being a proof for the Maharik</ref>		## The Maharik proves this from the gutter case of Bava Metzia 108a.<ref>The Shagat Aryeh (his comments on the Maharik are printed in the back of the Machon Oraita 1988 edition of Shut Maharik) says that the reason for the obligation of the city residents to assist the downstream inhabitants in gutter repair is for a different reason. The city residents harm the resident downstream if the gutter is not repaired, since all the waste will gather on the downstream. Therefore, the city participates in gutter repair not because the city is at risk- but rather because the city is the malefactor. This reading of the Shagat Aryeh removes this Gemara in Bava Metzia as being a proof for the Maharik.

			The Masah Melech (Masah Melech Chelek 2, Shaar 4) says that the city residents and downstream residents are in a state of partnership because they reside together, which is not so in the case of Regensburg, where the communities are not in partnership</ref>
	# This is so even if the risk is not certain because all risks of danger are considered certain risks		# This is so even if the risk is not certain because all risks of danger are considered certain risks
	## The Maharik proves this argument Bava Batra 8b- since orphans are given a wide series of tax exemptions, but are nevertheless required to pay for scouts lest an invader, come- that indicates potential danger is a source of obligation.<ref>The Masah Melech (2:4.4) is not impressed by the Maharik's proof. Orphans are obligated in taxes that relate to protection. Even if that protection is for an unlikely scenario, this does not mean that orphans only pay taxes for certain dangers. The Maharik spins this assumption out of nowhere		## The Maharik proves this argument Bava Batra 8b- since orphans are given a wide series of tax exemptions, but are nevertheless required to pay for scouts lest an invader, come- that indicates potential danger is a source of obligation.<ref>The Masah Melech (2:4.4) is not impressed by the Maharik's proof. Orphans are obligated in taxes that relate to protection. Even if that protection is for an unlikely scenario, this does not mean that orphans only pay taxes for certain dangers. The Maharik spins this assumption out of nowhere
Line 86:		Line 88:
	The Shvut Yaakov answer the question by challenging its premises.<ref>Shut Shvut Yaakov 1:158</ref> The Maharik case is dealing with a community, while the rescuer case is dealing with private individuals. The Shvut Yaakov says that community have far wider powers to demand compensation than individuals.		The Shvut Yaakov answer the question by challenging its premises.<ref>Shut Shvut Yaakov 1:158</ref> The Maharik case is dealing with a community, while the rescuer case is dealing with private individuals. The Shvut Yaakov says that community have far wider powers to demand compensation than individuals.

	The Shvut Yaakov premises this distinction on the principle of ''Kdeira Debei Shutfei''. The Gemara explains that in a certain case, a community can cut down a privately owned tree and pay the tree owner later. How can the community appropriate the tree without even paying for it. The Gemara cites the rationale of ''Kdeira Debei Shutfei''- a phrase that literally means a dish owned by many partners. The Rashbam explains that in a case where a dish has multiple cooks, each cook assumes that the other cook will take responsibility for the dish. Ultimately the dish will not be cooked, because each person will pass off responsibility. In order that community's behave proactively, the community is permitted to chop down and raise the money later. The Shvuut Yaakov states that in a case of communal danger- halacha incentives a speedy response lest no community take action. Therefore- the first community to respond is awarded compensation		The Shvut Yaakov premises this distinction on the principle of ''Kdeira Debei Shutfei''. The Gemara explains that in a certain case, a community can cut down a privately owned tree and pay the tree owner later. How can the community appropriate the tree without even paying for it. The Gemara cites the rationale of ''Kdeira Debei Shutfei''- a phrase that literally means a dish owned by many partners. The Rashbam explains that in a case where a dish has multiple cooks, each cook assumes that the other cook will take responsibility for the dish. Ultimately the dish will not be cooked, because each person will pass off responsibility. In order that community's behave proactively, the community is permitted to chop down and raise the money later. The Shvuut Yaakov states that in a case of communal danger- halacha incentives a speedy response lest no community take action. Therefore- the first community to respond is awarded compensation.

	=== Explanation of the Netivot Hamishpat ===		=== Explanation of the Netivot Hamishpat ===