Walter Jacob

Baba Kama 113b.

Baba Batra 55a.

Gittin 10b.

Erubin 11b.

Letter of Sherira Gaon (ed.) N.D. Rabinowich,(Jacob Joseph Press), Jerusalem , 1988.

. Salo W. Baron , The Jewish Community,(Jewish Publication Society ), Philadelphia , 1945, Vol. 1, pp. 175 ff.

Lewin, Baba Kama, p. 99; Harkavy, Teshuvot Hagaonim, p. 440.

. Simcha Asaf, Teshuvat Hagaonim, p. 75.

7. Simcha Asaf, ibid., vol. 2, p. 75.

amuel b. Meir(Rashbam ), Baba Batra 54b; Hayim ben Isaac, Or Zarua 34; Solomon Ibn Adret , Responsa Vol. 6# 149; Shulhan Arukh, Hoshen Mishpat, 369.2. The effect of new coinage issued by the king on a debt previously incurred raised the question of royal prerogative(Solomon ibn Adret , Responsa, III 34, 40, V 198).

. Gittin 88b; Harkavy, Teshuvot Hagaonim 278.

I. Agus, Teshuvot Baalei Tosfot.

Hil. Gezelah 5.12-18; Hil. Sekhiyah Umatan 1.15.

Asher, 18.2; Solomon b. Adret, Responsa III 15, 16, 79; VII1 48; Barfat, Responsa 51.

R. Yerucham, Sefer Mesharim; Samuel de Medine, Hoshen Mishpat, 350; Bar­fat, Responsa 51;Caro , Bet Joseph to Tur, Hoshen Mishpat, 26.

For the text and a discussion of its meaning see Louis Finkelstein , Jewish Self­Government in the Middle Ages,(Philipp Feldheim), New York , 1964, pp. 350 ff.

Barfat, Responsa, 5 and 6; though Joseph Caro disagreed with this decision (Abkat Rachel, 81); he made a distinction between Islamic lands where such

documents were part of the royal prerogative and Christian lands where

they were not.

Isaac b. Sheshet(Barfat), Responsa 5 and 6.

. Isaac b. Sheshet(Barfat), Responsa, 305.

. Joseph Caro , Abkat Rachel 81.

. Solomon ibn Adret , Responsa, II, 244, V 287; Asher, Responsa, 89.8; Mishneh Torah, Hil, Malveh velaveh 27.1; etc.

Appointments occurred often without consultation and aroused storms of protest. See Salo W. Baron , The Jewish Community, vol. 1, pp. 285 ff.

Isaac b. Sheshet(Barfat), Responsa 271; Samuel b. Simon of Duran, Responsa, I, 158; 533; Solomon ibn Adret , Responsa I, 475; A Neuman, Jews in Spain, Jewish Publication Society , Philadelphia , 1946, p. 114.

An interesting modern Israeli discussion of the place of custom and dina demalkhuta dina may be found in Nahum Rakover , Modern Applications of Jewish Law, Jewish Heritage Society, Jerusalem 1992, pp. 103 ff.

See Note 21.

This principle stated that every person had the right to decide how to dis­pose of his financial affairs. However, the authorities understood the use of non-Jewish courts to be destructive to communal cohesion.

In the eighteenth century Moses Sofer tried to keep the financial issues of ketubot outside the range of the king's law by stating that, after all, they were