Responsa for Bava Batra 85:14

ונעשין שומרי שכר זה לזה

Now if a partner can renounce his interest, why cannot two of the townspeople renounce their interest in, the scroll and try [him]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which shows that renunciation cannot be made by the process described above. ');">¹⁴</span> — A scroll of the Law is different, because it is for public reading.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And therefore none of the townspeople can entirely divest himself of his interest in it, unless he leaves the town. ');">¹⁵</span> Come and hear: If a man says: Distribute a <i>maneh</i> to the inhabitants of my town [and it is stolen], the judges of that town must not try [the alleged culprit] nor may the inhabitants give evidence against him. Why [should this be]? Cannot two of them renounce their share in the gift and try him? — Here too [we are dealing with] a scroll of the Law.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the gift was made for purchasing a scroll, and therefore none of the townspeople can entirely divest himself of his interest in it, unless he leaves the town. ');">¹⁶</span> Come and hear: If a man says: Distribute a <i>maneh</i> to the poor of my town [and it is stolen, the alleged culprit] is not to be tried by the judges of that town and the inhabitants of that town cannot give evidence in the case. What! Do you imagine then that, because the poor receive, the judges are to be disqualified?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This question relates to the form of the statement just made, which contains a manifest absurdity, and is therefore corrected in the next sentence. ');">¹⁷</span> What therefore you mean to say is this: the case must not be tried by the poor judges of that town, nor may the poor of the town give evidence. Why now should this be? Cannot two of them renounce their share and try the case? — Here too we [are dealing with] a scroll of the Law, and the reason why the donor designated the recipients as 'poor' is because all are poor in respect of a scroll of the Law. Or if you like again I can indeed say that the poor literally are meant, and the particular poor referred to are those whose support devolves on the judges.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who are presumably wealthy. ');">¹⁸</span> How are we to understand this? If there is a fixed levy,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On the rich for the support of the poor. ');">¹⁹</span> let two of them give their contribution and then try the case.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For then they are no longer interested in the donation. ');">²⁰</span> We assume therefore that there is no fixed levy.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But money is collected from the rich as occasion arises. Hence as long as the donation is in existence they have an interest in it. ');">²¹</span> Or if you like I can say that there is indeed a fixed levy, yet still the rich are pleased [that the <i>maneh</i> should be given to the poor], because after all there is a surplus.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'since there is something over, there is something over', and for the time being they are not called on to pay. ');">²²</span> [Samuel said above that partners] may stand to one another in the relation of paid keepers of their common property.

Teshuvot Maharam