Tosefot’s answers the question can you coerce somebody to give tzedakah? TB Baba Batra 8

A simple reading of the Gemara on daf TB Baba Batra 8 suggests that you can force a rich person to give tzedakah.

“The Gemara asks: What authority is associated with collecting charity? The Gemara answers: As Rav Naḥman says that Rabba bar Avuh says: Because they can seize collateral for the charity; i.e., they can collect charity by force, and even on Shabbat eve, when people are busy and might claim that they have no time or money. The Gemara objects: Is that so? But isn’t it written: “I will punish all that oppress them” (Jeremiah 30:20), and Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Shmuel bar Marta says in the name of Rav: And punishment will be meted out even to charity collectors? If charity collectors are permitted to force people to contribute charity, why are they counted among Israel’s oppressors?

“The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. This, Rabbi Naḥman’s statement, applies when the contributor is rich, in which case the collectors may seize money from him even by force. That, Rabbi Yitzḥak’s statement, applies when he is not rich, in which case the collectors who take money from him by force are termed oppressors of Israel. This right to force contributions from the rich is like what occurred in the incident in which Rava compelled Rav Natan bar Ami and took four hundred dinars from him for charity.” (Sefaria.org translation) Rav Natan bar Ami must have been a very rich person because four hundred dinars equals two years’ worth assumption of living expenses.

Tosefot ד"ה אַכְפְּיֵהּ לְרַב נָתָן provides two assumptions that challenge’s Rava’ ability to compel Rabbi Natan to donate tzedakah. Assumption  #1: Based upon TB Hullin 110b a court can not coercively intervene when it comes to a mitzvah whose “reward is (written) alongside.”  Assumption #2: Tzedakah is an example of such a mitzvah. “Rather, you must open your hand and lend whatever is sufficient to meet the need… God will bless you in all your efforts and in all your undertakings.” (Deuteronomy 15:8, 10)

Tosefot provides four different solutions to answer this challenge.

          Solution #1: Rabbeinu Tam reinterprets the scene. Rava was not coercive, but rather was verbally persuasive. Verbal coercion is not coercion.

          Solution #2: Alternatively Rabbeinu Tam interprets the story saying that the people of the city accepted upon themselves voluntarily to be coerced to give tzedakah. Consequently, the case at hand is not relevant to the larger question whether a person can coerce somebody to give tzedakah.

Both these solutions allow the above two assumptions to remain in force.

Solution #3: Rebbeinu Yitzkhak (ר"י) teaches that tzedakah is not an example of a mitzvah whose “reward is (written) alongside it” because it has a negative prohibition (לאו) attached to it. “Do not harden your heart and shut your hand against your needy kin.” (Deuteronomy 15:7) A court is allowed to enforce a negative commandment. Rebbeinu Yitzkhak rejects the second assumption.

Solution #4: Based on a sugiya in the Talmuld Yerushalmi Rabbeinu Yitzkhak ben Avraham teaches that the court is not punished for not enforcing a positive commandment whose “reward is (written) alongside it.” Consequently, they are allowed coerce a person to give tzedakah. Rabbeinu Yitzkhak ben Avraham rejects the first assumption.

As always, answer is maybe and it depends.