IN THE COURTS OF THE NATIONS - DataSpace - Princeton ...

ability and desire to move among different jurisdictions often goes hand in hand with having
multiple and overlapping jurisdictions available. 6
Intra-Jewish Cases in Sharī‘a Courts
The most common type of jurisdictional boundary crossing occurred when Jews went to a
sharī‘a court for intra-Jewish matters. Most of the time, Jews used sharī‘a courts to notarize
intra-Jewish contracts—just as Jews who used sharī‘a courts for matters concerning Muslims
mostly relied on the notarial function of these courts.
Both Islamic and Jewish law accepted the idea that Jews had the right to notarize their
intra-Jewish contracts in Jewish courts. As mentioned earlier, Mālikī jurists agreed that two
dhimmīs who brought a case to a sharī‘a court should be judged according to Islamic law.
Having contracts written and notarized by ‘udūl did not endanger their value in a beit din since
Jewish law recognized the validity of most notarial documents drawn up in non-Jewish courts.
According to a statement in the Babylonian Talmud (Gittin 10b), all legal documents drawn up
in non-Jewish courts were valid except for writs of divorce (get) and bills of manumission.
Later, this principle was extended such that non-Jewish legal documents (and indeed non-Jewish
law more broadly) were acceptable as long as they did not concern ritual matters (issur ve-
ḥeter). 7 Halakhah recognized the authority of the state to rule on all things related to monetary
law (mamona), meaning that bills of debt, real estate transactions, and almost any contract falling
under the categories of civil and criminal law (as opposed to family or ritual law) could be
notarized in non-Jewish courts.
6
See, e.g., Tamanaha, “Understanding Legal Pluralism,” 385, 400-1.
7
Michael Walzer et al., eds., The Jewish Political Tradition: Volume 1, Authority (New Haven: Yale University
Press, 2000), 434.
121