Responsa for Bava Kamma 225:22
ור"ע טעמא דאיכא קידוש השם הא ליכא קידוש השם באין
as it was taught: <font>'Where a suit arises between an Israelite and a heathen, if you can justify the former according to the laws of Israel, justify him and say: 'This is our law'; so also if you can justify him by the laws of the heathens justify him and say [to the other party:] 'This is your law'; but if this can not be done, we use subterfuges to circumvent him.</font><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra, p. 211, n. 6. ');"><sup>34</sup></span> This is the view of R. Ishmael, but R. Akiba said that we should not attempt to circumvent him on account of the sanctification of the Name. <font>Now according to R. Akiba the whole reason [appears to be,] because of the sanctification of the Name, but were there no infringement of the sanctification of the Name, we could circumvent him!</font> Is then the robbery of a heathen permissible?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [I.e., in withholding anything to which he is entitled; v. Sanh. (Sonc. ed.) p. 388, n. 6. Graetz MGWJ, 1881, p. 495. shows clearly that the whole controversy whether robbery of a heathen was permissible was directed against the iniquitous Fiscus Judaicus imposed by Vespasian and exacted with much rigor by Domitian.] ');"><sup>35</sup></span>
Teshuvot Maharam
A. If A's claim regarding the seizure of L's valuables is true, it is presumed that L abandoned all hope of recovering them. Although in the case of an ordinary robber no such presumption exists (B. K. 114a), at present every overlord is king in his domain; no one exercises any restraint upon him, and we presume that owners of movables seized by an overlord have abandoned all hope of recovery. Therefore, L's seized valuables belong to A since he acquired them through abandonment (yeush) and change of possession (shinui reshut), although the principle "the law of the land prevails" does not apply in this case of robbery and extortion. However, A is not entitled to collect any additional tax-money from L, since she was not personally included by the overlord in his extortionist act on A. Although all persons earning money in a town or locality must share the burden of taxation of such a town or locality, this ruling applies only to regular taxes of a fixed amount annually collected by the king (or overlord) from the entire community in one lump sum. The robbery and extortion of an overlord, however, on pretext or false accusation, is to be borne only by the person unfortunately caught in his toils, but not by those who, probably by the grace of God, have escaped them.
R. Meir adds the obscure statement: L must pay the rent for the house but would be permitted to deduct therefrom whatever she will assert under oath that he failed to spend on wood and illumination.
This Responsum is addressed to R. Isaac, R. Samuel, and R. Yehiel.
SOURCES: L. 381; Rashba I, 1105.