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

products (such as barley). 23 This, however, could cause controversy as Jewish creditors
sometimes refused to accept payments in kind. 24 Some entries mention that the creditors
released the debtors after they had paid what they owed, meaning that they had a release (ibrā’)
notarized before ‘udūl (as discussed in Chapter Two). 25
It is difficult to know much about the identity of the Jewish creditors who petitioned the
Makhzan about their unpaid debts. As mentioned above, most of the Jews recorded in the
registers appear only once, and without enough information to trace them. However, there are a
few instances in which it is possible to know more about the Jews concerned. In particular, a
number of entries concern the Assarraf family (as discussed at the beginning of Chapter Four). 26
The Jewish name Ibn al-Baḥar also appears repeatedly in the Ministry of Complaints registers.
There were at least two Ibn al-Baḥars (Yosef and Mas‘ūd), both of whom were protégés (French
and Portuguese respectively). 27 The Ibn al-Baḥars’ repeated claims in the Ministry of
23
For debts paid fully or partially in kind, see BH, K 157, p. 125, 27 Rabī‘ II 1307; p. 164, 20 Jumādā II 1307; BH,
K 181, p. 299, 1 Jumādā I 1310; p. 361, 6 Ramaḍān 1310.
24
The Jewish creditor refused to accept payment in kind in two of the four cases: BH, K 157, p. 125, 27 Rabī‘ II
1307 and BH, K 181, p. 299, 1 Jumādā I 1310.
25
I found a letter which suggests that sometimes the sultan demanded proof of settlement: DAR, Fez, Mawlāy
Ḥasan to Sa‘īd b. Farajī, 6 Jumādā I 1298. Mawlāy Ḥasan specified that Sa‘īd should send him a copy of the release
documents for those debts that were settled, and that for those which were only partially settled he should write the
amount paid on the back of the original bill of debt and have it signed by ‘udūl until the debt was paid in full.
However, it is possible that this procedure was exceptional and that in most instances the sultan did not require such
stringent proof of settlement.
26
Unfortunately Assarraf was a common Jewish name in Morocco, and the Ministry of Complaints registers do not
always preserve the first name of the particular Assarraf concerned (thirteen merely mention the “dhimmī al-
Ṣarrāf”). Nonetheless, one entry names Ya‘qūb b. Shālūm al-Ṣarrāf (Ya‘aqov b. Shalom Assarraf) (BH, K 181, p.
92, 12 Jumādā II 1309), and a number of others mention a Ya‘qūb b. al-Ṣarrāf who was probably the same person:
BH, K 181, p. 108, 5 Rajab 1309; p. 123, 29 Rajab 1309; p. 133, 16 Sha‘bān 1309; p. 134, 17 Sha‘bān 1309.
Another entry mentions Mardūkh al-Ṣarrāf, who was probably Mordekhai b. Yehudah Assarraf, Shalom’s brother:
BH, K 181, p. 108, 5 Rajab1309.
27
Some entries clearly refer to Mas‘ūd Ibn al-Baḥar (either including his first name or describing him as a
Portoguese protégé): see BH, K 171, p. 80, 4 Shawwāl 1307; BH 181, p. 201, 17 Dhū al-Qa‘da 1309. See also
DAR, Fez, 730, Mawlāy Ḥasan to ‘Abdallāh b. Aḥmad, 26 Rajab 1301; Sa‘īd b. Farajī to Muḥammad b. al-‘Arabī,
15 Muḥarram 1302. On Yūsif b. al-Baḥar, see DAR, Fez, Mawlāy Ḥasan to Sa‘īd b. Farajī, 2 Muḥarram 1301 and,
Mawlāy Ḥasan to Sa‘īd b. Farajī, 15 Rajab 1301. The name Ibn al-Baḥar appears in a total of 24 entries concerning
18 cases. In most of these, the first name is not specified, so it is impossible to know whether the case concerned
Yosef or Mas‘ūd: see BH, K 174, p. 80, 3 Sha‘bān 1308 (two entries); BH, K 181, p. 34, 4 Ṣafar 1309; p. 56, 15
Rabī‘ II 1309; p. 73, 11 Jumādā I 1309; p. 90, 8 Jumādā II 1309; p. 117, 16 Rajab 1309; p. 127, 4 Sha‘bān 1309; p.
189