Responsa for Bava Kamma 226:18
ואמר רבא בר מתא אבר מתא מיעבט וה"מ דברלא ארעא וכרגא דהאי שתא אבל שתא דחליף הואיל ואפייס מלכא חליף
the proprietors abandon their right? Still, as the officers do not fully carry out the instructions of the ruler,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'King'. ');"><sup>31</sup></span> since the ruler orders them to go and fell the trees from each valley [in equal proportion], and they come and fell them from one particular valley, [why then do we make use of the bridges which are thus constructed from misappropriated timber?] — The agent of the ruler is like the ruler himself<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Shebu. 47b. ');"><sup>32</sup></span>
Teshuvot Maharam
Q. The king held the Jews of the community responsible for A's failing to return to the city at an appointed time, and imposed a fine on them. The community, therefore, demanded that A reimburse them for the penalties they suffered on his account. A, however, claimed that the community did not guarantee his return at the specified date, and that the king used his failure to return as a mere pretext for extortion.
A. Since A claims that the community did not guarantee his return, he can not be held responsible for the king's extortionate action. The king has no right to hold a community responsible for the whereabouts of an individual. Such action on the part of the king is not considered governmental law, but is to be put in the category of outright robbery.
SOURCES: Pr. 943.
A. Since A claims that the community did not guarantee his return, he can not be held responsible for the king's extortionate action. The king has no right to hold a community responsible for the whereabouts of an individual. Such action on the part of the king is not considered governmental law, but is to be put in the category of outright robbery.
SOURCES: Pr. 943.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy