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.

↑ Back to top