Responsum: On a Dispute over a Vineyard

Question: From Rhodes. When the Lord expanded the borders [see Deuteronomy 19:8] of the dispersion of the diaspora and granted us a remnant and remainder in the kingdom of Turkey, He treated us with His kindness and His great mercies, and to keep many people alive (Genesis 50:20) He sent before us a man of God. This man is a shoot out of the stock of wisdom and Torah, and a twig from the roots of humility and holiness [see Isaiah 11:1], a tried stone, a costly corner-stone (Isaiah 28:16), the top stone (Zechariah 4:7), who illuminates the perplexed of heart and myriads of tens of thousands of generations through a bright partition. At the light of his glory, the shining sun was concealed by confusion, and if the sun, which shines upon earth, people, animals, and crawling creatures, becomes thick darkness, as evident in the nights, how will the small stars shine, for their light is covered with a cloud and darkness. Who in our generation is like our master, the most wondrous of judges, the mighty hammer? Who can understand and impart his knowledge, in whose hand there is a staff and a strap to use with strength and power? He is our stronghold on a day of trouble, our teacher R. David, may the Merciful One protect and redeem him.

May our master teach us regarding the following case: Reuben had a vineyard, half of which he sold to Simeon for one hundred gold coins. It is the custom in the city to uphold a sale by means of a document prepared by a scribe, according to the laws of Israel. However, this transaction was conducted only in the gentile courts, and they truly produce forgeries, accept briberies, and generally act to their own detriment. Soon afterward, Reuben passed away—may the rabbis live—and Simeon sued Reuben’s heirs for the half of the vineyard he had acquired from their father. Reuben’s heirs responded that he must bring proof before he can take it. At this point, Simeon brought out the document that had been drafted in their courts. When the court observed that he had a document, they ruled that Reuben’s heirs must give Simeon half of the vineyard. Upon seeing that the ruling of the court was in Simeon’s hand, and since they were also afraid that they might suffer some harm on account of the document that had been prepared in their courts, Reuben’s heirs came to a compromise with Simeon that he should hand over to them the document in his possession and that they would give him twenty gold coins more than the price of the sale. Now Reuben’s heirs are claiming that they acted under duress and that the twenty gold coins which they gave, over and above the sum of the loan, should be considered interest. They argue that no act of acquisition was performed for this sale, which could grant possession, nor is there a document, as the document that was drafted in the gentile court is worthless and should be disregarded. Thus, it turns out retroactively that the money was in Reuben’s possession as a loan. Should the money be taken from the judges or from Simeon, in accordance with the law of fixed interest?

Response: As for the statement of praise, leave me alone, I will not respond to you, for with regard to these and similar comments I rely on the words and saying of the poet [Ibn Ezra]: “the best in a poem is its falsehood.”

I will now respond to the main legal issue. It seems that it is clear to you that justice is on the side of Reuben’s heirs and that your only question is whether the money should be extracted from the judges, as per the law of a judge who erred in his deliberation [see b. Sanhedrin 6a], or from Simeon, since it is fixed interest. However, my opinion is otherwise, as I maintain that the sale is valid. Even if you say that the regional custom is that one may not purchase land with money until a document has been written—as we rule in accordance with the opinion of Samuel that the law of the kingdom is the law [see, e.g., b. Gittin 10b]—the king has said that a document prepared in their courts can be used for the acquisition of land, as is well-known throughout the entire realm of the king, may he be exalted. Now, there are those who maintain that the principle of “the law of the kingdom is the law” applies to all monetary matters, whereas others contend that it applies specifically to taxes and levies and such, which are the concern of the king. There is yet another opinion that we apply this rule of the law of the kingdom to all cases involving land, and this is the accepted opinion because it takes the middle path, and it is also the view of the Rambam [Maimonides], of blessed memory. If so, they correctly ruled that Reuben’s heirs are obligated in half of the capital.

I think it is a far-fetched claim to say that the regional custom is to nullify the documents that were drafted in their courts and that a sale shall only be maintained by means of documents of Jews and their witnesses. For many conditions are necessary in order for this custom to be maintained: first, it must be known to be the custom by older folk, and furthermore, they must be aware that the law of the kingdom is the law in such circumstances and yet our custom is that a sale shall be upheld only through documents of Jews. In addition, it is necessary for it to have happened that a document of this kind, which had been prepared in their courts, had come before them on several occasions and they had refused to issue a verdict on its basis. Finally, this custom must have been adopted as the widespread practice throughout the country and become so well-known that Simeon cannot claim ignorance of it. It is clear that such a custom can be publicized, as the gentiles rule over themselves.

Nevertheless, if Reuben’s heirs are able to ascertain that this is in fact the regional custom, with all the stipulations I wrote above, then the judges erred in a plain matter and the ruling is void, as there is a general principle that we always follow the regional custom. Reuben’s heirs would be liable to return to Simeon the document that was drafted in the courts, the judgment would be reversed and “why would they need to shift donkey packs?”¹ You should not say that the document should not be returned to Simeon. Firstly, this would be unfair to him, as it would mean that the ruling would not have been negated, since he no longer has his document in his possession. Furthermore, he can in any case produce another document based on the court protocols. Indeed, I have no idea how Reuben’s heirs have managed to avoid forced compliance up to this point, as the claim against them remains continuously valid, and they cannot deny it, seeing that the matter is recorded in the court protocols.

I do not know how anyone could think that the judges should be obligated to pay. They merely ruled that they should give him half of the vineyard, and the parties subsequently went off and came to their own compromise. In addition, the judges did not actively carry out their ruling, and furthermore, perhaps they were expert judges. Yet another point is that the parties might have agreed to accept any verdict they would issue.

For these reasons, I maintain that they had no doubt about this issue at all. Rather, the question is whether or not the judgment should be reversed. However, the questioner had already made up his mind that Simeon was obligated to return it, and in order that the halakhic authority should be drawn after his opinion, he framed his question in terms of whether it is the judges who are liable or Simeon, so that the scholar who was asked would decide between those two options, and that it would go without saying that the judgment should be reversed. Yet he failed to take into account that I examine the case of him whom I do not know (Job 29:16).

You should further know that even if the judges erred, the compromise remains valid, and they have no further claim against Simeon at all, even if they acted fully under compunction. This is in accordance with the accepted principle that “if one was strung up and sold something, his sale is valid” [see, e.g., b. Bava Kamma 62a], as he accepts the transaction on account of the coercion and the money. Consequently, in the case at hand too, due to the coercion, i.e., the judgment and the document from their court, and the money, that is, the one hundred florins that they would have to give back, they accepted the transaction performed by their father. It is therefore considered as though they sold it now and reacquired half the vineyard from him for 120 florins. There is also no reason to distinguish between a case where they are to give the money now and a situation where the money is already in his possession, as the bottom line is that he benefits from the fact that he does not have to give away money that is in his possession. Thus, due to their coercion and the benefit that they do not have to give away the one hundred florins from their possessions, they accepted the transaction and upheld their father’s sale, and then returned and acquired it from Simeon. Accordingly, there is no interest or robbery here, and Simeon has rightfully acquired that which is his. I have written that which appears correct to me.