Introduction to Records of the Metz Beit Din
Jay R. Berkovitz, University of Massachusetts, USA
Until roughly 1789, the hallmark of Jewish communal autonomy was the authority granted to rabbinic courts to adjudicate civil cases involving Jewish litigants. Nevertheless, the exclusive civil jurisdiction of these tribunals was challenged regularly by individuals seeking to resolve their disputes in the general courts. The bestowal of Jewish emancipation in France was conditioned on the agreement of the Ashkenazic communities of Alsace and Lorraine to surrender their judicial authority in the civil sphere. In Metz, the much esteemed rabbinic court (beit din) continued to convene until early 1790. Three registers from the beit din are preserved in manuscript at the YIVO Archives in New York. Commencing in 1771, the registers contain nearly two decades of judicial cases totaling 1167 decisions.
The two cases that follow pertain to the guardianship of orphans — a common matter before Jewish and general tribunals. The first case involved two hearings. At the first, held in August 1771, several accusations of mismanagement of the orphans’ estate were brought against the guardians; five months later, following additional developments, at a new hearing in January, the court issued a second ruling. Much can be learned from the details concerning the investment and leveraging of assets, and also from the efforts of the beit din to defend the institution of guardianship while also seeking to protect the welfare of the orphans. Two additional points are worth noting: First, the reason guardians were appointed, even though the mother was alive, was due to the general unwillingness of rabbinic courts to appoint women, unless so instructed by the husband before he died. Second, the beit din concluded its January ruling by referring to the coercive measures at its disposal.Nevertheless, it is unclear what these measures entailed and whether the beit din still had the authority to enforce its rulings.
The second case, which also came before the beit din in August 1771, involved a woman who had been appointed by the French court as guardian over her son. Now that the boy had reached the age of thirteen, he expressed a desire to dismiss his mother as his guardian. It is important to note that after going to the French court, the mother was able to return to the beit din - with full recognition of her new status — to resolve the outstanding monetary issues. Moreover, the beit din’s handling of the case, particularly its familiarity with the details of local French law, suggests that a cooperative relationship between the rabbinic court and the French civil court had emerged. Clearly, it was no longer possible either to prevent members from taking their cases outside the community or to malign those who did.
Additional readings
Berkovitz, Jay. Rites and Passages: The Beginnings of Modern Jewish Culture in France, 1650-1860. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2004.
Hertzberg, Arthur. The French Enlightenment and the Jews. New York: Columbia University Press, 1968.
Kerner, Samuel. “Les registres inédits des tribunaux rabbiniques de Metz (1771-1779) et de Niedernai (1755-1777). Revue des etudes juives 138 (1979): 495-97.
Malino, Frances. “Competition and Confrontation: The Jews and the Parlement of Metz,” in Les Juifs au regards de l’histoire: Mélanges en l’honneur de Bernhard Blumenkranz, G. Dahan, ed. (Paris, 1985), pp. 327-341.
______, “Résistances et révoltes à Metz dans la première moitié du 18e siècle,” in Juifs en France au XVIIIe siècle, B. Blumenkranz, ed. (Paris, 1994), pp. 125-140.
Perrier, Sylvie. Des enfances protégées: La tutelle des mineurs en France (XVIIe-XVIIIe siècles); Enquête à Paris et à Châlons-sur-Marne. Saint-Denis, France: Presses universitaires de Vincennes. 1998.
Records of the Metz Beit Din
Court Records, (1771-1789)
Translated by Jay R. Berkovitz, University of Massachusetts, USA
Case 1: 21 Ab 5531 [1 August 1771]
The brothers R. Lazar and R. Feivel of Barchingen,[1] guardians (apotroposim) of the orphans of R. Michael Barschingen, approached us, the Beit Din, at the request of relatives of the orphans of the deceased, and in accordance with the obligation set forth in the court decision of 24 Iyyar 5528, to give an accurate accounting before the Beit Din, of all the expenses and revenue of the orphans of the deceased. The relatives of the orphans appointed as an attorney Rabbi Yozel Merchingen to represent the step father of the aforementioned orphans, the katzin R. Itzik Puttlingen to stand behind him for the benefit of the orphans and to look into the account, particularly what requires special scrutiny. And following the inspection by the attorney [he] found some problems and claims against the guardians, as he reported at length before us concerning each and every detail. These are in addition to other claims against the guardians advanced in writings by relatives, who are inclined to remove the guardians and entrust the funds of the orphans to a person of means who will give them more than five percent per year , especially because the orphans are exhausting their principal, since they do not receive more than five percent per year, which is not sufficient for even half the orphans’ needs, as is clearly evident in the expenses according to the account of the guardians.
The orphans’ attorney also claimed that the guardians ought to pay for all of the accounting expenses [possibly: attorney’s fees] to date, since they are responsible for this. He also claimed that the guardians included in their account the interest (revahim) [on funds they borrowed for] expenditures that they made on behalf of the orphans, but we have never heard that the orphans are obligated to pay for interest insofar as the guardians were always in control of the orphans’ money and did not pay for anything out of their own pocket. He also claimed that the guardians are obligated to cover all the debts that they have recently incurred but have not paid, and also must pay in accordance with the court decision that the community of Barschingen owes to the estate.
After we heard their arguments at length concerning the claims of accounting problems made by the attorney, and after we, the Beit Din, looked into the account, and insofar as they [the guardians] answered the attorney on each point, we have not found a clear claim to remove the guardians; we have found only what was stated in the body of the account to be out of order, and there are some errors in the account they presented to us. Therefore we have decided to hold onto the account that had formerly been in the hands of the Beit Din and to return the new account to the guardians, and also to hold onto the receipts and expenditures included in the more recent account s that we will be able, at an opportune time, clarify this matter in favor of the orphans.
We, the Beit Din, have also decided that the guardians must provide a signed list to the katzin R. Itzig Puttlingen, as well as all the written documents that they have in their possession that belong to the estate of the deceased, and he will send the list to the Beit Din. And concerning his claim that the guardians are obligated to pay for all the accounting expenses, those that were incurred before the relatives and the account that was made before the month of Shevat 5530: The interest on their expenditures will be deducted from their account. We have found that one offsets the other, [i.e.] that the guardians are not obligated to pay for the accounting expenses, and against this, the interest [they had listed] will be deducted from their account.
And concerning the request of the attorney to turn over a certain sum to a person of means who will provide a yield of more than five percent per year so that their principle will not be exhausted: We have decided that since the guardians had some difficulty meeting their debts, we cannot exact from them the six thousand livres that were given to them as guardians in the Beit Din decision of 24 Iyyar 5530, according to the conditions explained there. Indeed what they have left over from the six thousand livres is valid, as explained in the court’s decision, and according to the account presented by the guardians before us, the Beit Din. We have found that they now have only approximately eight thousand eighty five livres in cash, including the portion belonging to the orphan Lazar who has reached the age of majority.
We, the Beit Din, have also decided that since one of the two brothers traveled abroad, and in the court decision of 24 Iyyar 5528 it was stated that no one may be appointed even as an auditor who is not under the authority of our master, the Av Beit Din. We have therefore found that Lazar is obligated to provide security sufficient in the eyes of the Beit Din in France, amounting to three thousand livres from today until next Rosh Hashanah, and if not, the relatives have the power to remove him as guardian and to give it [guardianship] to a person of means in France who is acceptable to the Beit Din. And owing to the debts that they have incurred, a security [will now be required] until the guardians take an oath that in the future they will carry out their duties for the sake of heaven and will pay everything possible that is for the benefit of the orphans, in all ways set forth in the Beit Din decision. R. Feivel also demanded cash from R. Lazar equivalent of eight months’ worth, and one month from the younger orphan as a security.
This decision is executed by the Beit Din, today, Thursday, the twenty first day of Menahem 5531. The Beit Din consisted of our Master and Teacher, the Gaon Av Beit Din; and Rabbi Sender Katz; and Rabbi Mordechai Levi.
3 Shevat 5532 [8 January 1772]
The katzin the honorable Itzik Hess of Puttelange, step father of the orphans of the late Michael of Barchingen came before us, the Beit Din [complaining] that his wife is distraught over the fate of her children, that the property of the orphans of Michael is diminishing from day to day, making it necessary to consume their principle. According to the account of the guardians the orphans only have yield (prix) from six thousand livres, which generates three hundred livres per year. And they must pay the step father, Itzik, six hundred livres per year, in accordance with the court decision of 24 Nisan 5531. Accordingly, the Beit Din is inclined to accept the cries of the earliest ones, that is, the relatives of the orphans to take whatever is in the possession of the guardians and give it to a person of means, who will provide more than five percent per year, in order not to consume the entire principle of the orphans. Let him who dictates the letter be its executor. For Itzik would like to receive what is in the possession of the guardians as security, sufficient in France, and in exchange for the yield on six thousand livres, as he is willing to maintain the orphans and provide for their needs, food, and livelihood until they are grown.
He also argued on behalf of his wife that the guardians did not uphold even a fraction of all the previous decisions, and that everything in their eyes is a laughing matter. The decision of 21 Menahem 5531 was repeated several times, that Lazar was required to give a security, sufficient in France, for three thousand livres and that the guardians were obligated to present a list, signed, to the katzin Itzik son of Y. of Phalsbourg, comprised of all the written records that belong to the orphans of Michael. They still have not provided this list to Itzik, and Lazar has not deposited the security.
After we heard the words of Itzik, we, the Beit Din, issued a decision that Lazar is hereby removed from his position as guardian and is obligated to give the amount of three thousand livres to Itzig, via a security sufficient in France and acceptable to the Beit Din and to the relatives. Itzig will maintain two of Michael’s orphans, and those that are determined, by lottery today, will go with Itzig, for food, sustenance, and all their needs until they are grown, in exchange for the yield on three thousand livres. Itzig is required to give a guarantee in the Beit Din that he is willing to maintain the two orphans in exchange for the yield on three thousand livres, according to the foregoing terms, until they are grown. Feivel, since at the beginning of his appointment as guardian, the orphans’ money was given only to these two brothers together, each one assisting the other, and now that one of them has gone to another country, the package has come apart, therefore, if Feivel deposits a sufficient security that is acceptable to the Beit Din and the relatives, he will be given priority to maintain two of the orphans of Michael until they are grown, with respect to food, sustenance, and all their needs, for the two orphans that will be given to Feivel by lottery, in exchange for the yield on the funds he still has in hand. He is also obligated to give a guarantee in the Beit Din that he is willing to maintain the two orphans in all the aforementioned respects. And should he refuse, then he is also [to be] removed from the position of guardian.
And now our decision is issued, sanctioned by all the coercive measures at it disposal, that the guardians will uphold all that we, the Beit Din, have decided regarding the expenses of the guardians. And this is to affirm that all that is mentioned above will be executed within thirty days, from the day that this decision is announced. The guardians are also obligated to pay Itzig what they are obligated according to the preceding decisions, otherwise subject to punishment by the aforementioned coercive measures.[2]
This decision is issued by the Beit Din, today, Tuesday, the third day in the month of Shevat 5532. The Beit Din consisted of our Master and Teacher, the Gaon Av Beit Din; Rabbi Sender Katz; and Rabbi Mordechai ben R. Lieberman Levi.
Case 2: 7 Ab 5531 [18 July 1771]
Concerning the dispute between the wife of Rabbi Jacob Coblentz and her son, from her first husband, Gershon: The wife of R. Jacob, represented by her husband in the presence of her son, sued her son because she was appointed [his] guardian according to their customs, and now that he has reached the age of majority he [wishes] to dismiss her as his guardian before the notary at his own expense. [She demands that he] also pay her for what he owes her according to the records that were presented before us, the Beit Din, amounting to three hundred eighty-six livres. And her husband Jacob sued the orphan for three louis d’or for school tuition. He also demanded that [the son] give him and the curateur[3] with a décharge [discharge] before the notary.
The orphan, Gershon, sued his mother for the amount of fifty-five livres for what remained of the rent [of the house] after expenses. He also sued her for three hundred eighty-six livres for revenue that she received from R. Neta Emrich, from the day of her marriage to her husband R. Jacob until his having reached thirteen years of age. And according to the conditions of R. Jacob, he was obligated to maintain the orphan at his table without compensation. He also sued him for seven louis d’or for his having taken from him cash (pèse) that belonged to the orphan. He also sued him for two-sevenths of gold and a silver cup. He also demanded that she return to him all of his clothing and porcelain and one lamp, and also to return to him all the notes of indebtedness that had been transferred to her as guardian, as set forth in the decision of the Beit Din that was executed after the death of his father, and to give him the funds that she collected of the aforementioned debts.
After we heard the matters in dispute and the claims of each, we have found that since for whatever amount one conceded to his fellow that he owes him, and that even after conceding the point each one still owes his fellow according to his claim, we, the Beit Din, have decided that the wife of R. Jacob can take an oath that she is exempt, that she owes her son nothing.
And if she swears that her son still owes her, she can hold onto all of his clothing and porcelain and lamp and cup, equivalent to the amount he owes her according to her claim. And if what she has in hand is not sufficient to offset what she claims he owes her, and she still wishes to take from her son what is left after the deduction [of expenses] , then the son should take an oath attesting that he owes her nothing. And after the oath he is obligated to give her and her husband and to the curateur the décharge in any possible way by asking experts whether the décharge is sufficient in [ordinary] French handwriting, without make use of a notary. And concerning R. Jacob’s suit to recover tuition expenses, it is not at all like R. Jacob’s words.
We have also decided that the orphan is entitled to receive the revenue from Neta Emrich annually, and he does not require his mother’s waiver. (The wife of R. Jacob is also obligated to return all the notes mentioned in the prior decision of the court). This decision is issued by the Beit Din, today, Thursday, the seventh of the month of Ab 5531. The Beit Din consisted of our Master and Teacher, the Gaon Av Beit Din; Rabbi Berr Fulda; and Rabbi Mordechai Levi.
Endnotes
[1] Barschingen is in the Moselle region, not far from Sarrebourg. Ten Jewish families resided there in 1772.
[2] For prior reference to the coercive measure referred to be the court, see: Samuel Kerner, “Le règlement de la communauté juive de Metz de 1769,” Annales de l’Est 24 (1972): 210-253, articles 68 and 71 ; and paragraph 16 of Rabbi Aryeh Loeb Günzberg’s contract, in Schwarzfuchs, “The Rabbinic Contract of the Sha’agat Aryeh in Metz,” Moriah 15 (1986): 81-90.
[3] The curateur was a legal representative, usually designated by a judge, until the child reached age of majority