Responsa for Bava Batra 199:5
וטעמא מאי משום דרב יהודה דאמר רב יהודה מצר שהחזיקו בו רבים אסור לקלקלו
The reporter of the one statement is not the reporter of the other.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Giddal, who taught in the name of Rab that R. Eliezer deals with the case where a public path had been lost in the field, has not accepted the statement made in the name of Rab by Rabbah that the law is not in accordance with R. Eliezer. In the opinion of the former the law is in agreement with the view of R. Eliezer. Rabbah, on the other hand, who stated in the name of Rab that the law is not in agreement with R. Eliezer's view, has not accepted R. Giddal's statement. In the opinion of Rabbah, R. Eliezer speaks of all cases, even of that where no path had been lost in the field and, for this reason, the law is against him. ');"><sup>9</sup></span> What, then,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since our Mishnah is not according to R. Eliezer. ');"><sup>10</sup></span>
Teshuvot Maharam
A. The decisions on questions of taxation are dependent more on custom than on talmudic law. The following rule is generally accepted by the communities: In any tax dispute between an individual and the community, the latter first collects the tax and then goes to court. Therefore, even before the tax is collected, the community is considered to be in possession of the tax-money, and the burden of proof falls upon the individual. This is not only an accepted custom, but also good talmudic law, and is operative even in a new community where there are no established customs. But if the community in question has a different custom, that custom prevails, though it be at variance with talmudic law.
This Responsum is addressed to R. Eliakim ha-Kohen.
SOURCES: Pr. 106; Mord. B. B. 522; cf. also Cr. 49; Pr. 708, 915; L. 371; Am II, 130. Agudah B.M. 108; Moses Minz, Responsa 72; Terumat Hadeshen 341.