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

only in Jewish law. This happened in Morocco with ḥazaqot (s. ḥazaqah), the usufruct rights to
real estate. One could own the ḥazaqah on a piece of real estate separately from the ownership
of the real estate itself. While ḥazaqot were originally designed to keep the occupants of certain
properties Jewish, in Morocco they had evolved to guarantee the owner of the ḥazaqah usufruct
rights to the property in question. 71 In a case in which one person owned a building itself and
another owned the ḥazaqah, a tenant would pay rent to both the owner of the building and the
owner of the ḥazaqah. Ḥazaqot functioned much like their Islamic equivalents zīna and jalsa
(although these were only attached to ḥubs properties). 72 However, a ḥazaqah did not replace a
zīna or a jalsa; on the contrary, a single building could have both a ḥazaqah and the Islamic
version of usufruct rights simultaneously, each owned by a different person. 73
Owning a ḥazaqah could be a lucrative investment, much like owning property. Because
ḥazaqot did not exist in Islamic law, if a Muslim wanted to invest in a ḥazaqah he had to acquire
it through a beit din. However, things were not quite so simple from the rabbis’ point of view.
According to Jewish law, only Jews were allowed to acquire a ḥazaqah, since the entire premise
of this legal instrument was to keep property in Jewish hands. In a collection of responsa
(teshuvot, s. teshuvah) published in 1812, Avraham Qoriat discussed the problem posed by the
sale of a ḥazaqah to a non-Jew. 74 Although Qoriat admitted that technically speaking it was
impossible to sell a ḥazaqah to a Muslim, he ultimately ruled that Jews must uphold such sales:
But when there is [a question of] defaming God’s name we let the matter drop, so that
one would not say that if a Jew came with a Muslim to be judged it would be said to the
71
On ḥazaqot, see Meir Benayahu, “Haskamot ‘ḥazaqot he-ḥatzerot, ha-batim ve-he-ḥanuyot’ be-Saloniki upisqeihem
shel rabi Yosef Ṭaiṭatzaq ve-ḥakhmei doro,” Mikhael 9 (1985) and Zafrani, “Les relations judéomusulmanes
dans la littérature juridique,” 138-41.
72
See Abribat, “Les contrats de quasi-aliénation,” esp. 145-6 and Milliot, Démembrements du Habous, esp.
Chapters 1-2.
73
Abribat, “Les contrats de quasi-aliénation,” 143. The article discusses Tunisia in particular, but it seems likely
that the same situation also existed in Morocco.
74
Avraham Qoriaṭ, Zekhut 'Avot (Piza: 1812), Number 80, 47a-48a.
139