Skip to navigation – Site map

HomeNuméros10A Study on the Visibility of Jews...

A Study on the Visibility of Jews in Ottoman Courts: The Example of Hasköy Court (1612–1643)

Talha Kaan Ünlü

Abstracts

This study examines the commercial, social and legal relations of Jews in the Ottoman Empire through the records of Hasköy Court Registry No. 5. Ottoman court registers are significant sources that provide valuable information in many areas such as social life, family life, economic activities and law in the Ottoman Empire. They can be used effectively in studies on the Jewish community. Contrary to common sense, Jews frequently applied to the Ottoman courts not only in their cases with other communities but also in cases involving various issues among themselves. These applications also show that Jews did not keep themselves self-enclosed and interacted with the involved society.

Top of page

Full text

Introduction

  • 1 Y. Uğur, “Şer’iyye Sicilleri”.
  • 2 For more detailed information on the Sharia courts and the duties of the kadı, see: A. Akgündüz, “İ (...)
  • 3 Ronald C. Jennings’s study of the women of the seventeenth-century city of Kayseri from a legal per (...)

1The registers in which the decisions of the courts of the Ottoman Empire were recorded are called kadı sicilleri or şer’iyye sicilleri.1 These registers, kept by the kadı or his regent, contain different types of cases and judgments.2 The cases in the şer’iyye sicilleri provide valuable information in many areas such as Ottoman family life, social life, economic activities, and law, which are cases involving people from all strata of society living in the center and the provinces. Such a situation reflects the presence of different groups living in Ottoman society in the courts and is significant in terms of enabling research on these groups. Women, slaves and non-Muslims are examples of such groups. Ottoman court registers are especially important for research on Ottoman women’s history. Although women were more active in social life than previously thought, it is possible to find cases or judgments against women who were not included in the research as much as men in the registers of any region of the Empire at any time. For this reason, şer’iyye sicilleri are one of the main sources to be consulted in Ottoman women’s studies.3

  • 4 A. Cohen, Ottoman Documents on the Jewish Community…; A. Cohen, “On the Realities…”; A. Cohen, Jewi (...)
  • 5 H. Gerber, “Jewish Tax-Farmers…”, 143–154.
  • 6 F. M. Göçek, “Ottoman Archival Information…”, 705–716.
  • 7 M. Rozen, “Public Space and Private Space…”, 331–346.
  • 8 M. Yazbak, “Jewish-Muslim Social…”, 114–125.
  • 9 C. Şişman, “Osmanlı “Millet”lerinin Girift İlişkileri…”, 385–399.
  • 10 For a literature review and bibliography on şer’iyye sicilleri, see: Y. Uğur, “Mahkeme Kayıtları (Ş (...)

2Another area where the Ottoman court registers can be used effectively is studies on non-Muslims. Such studies can be divided into studies on Jews and Christians. There are some remarkable studies on Jews that have already been conducted using the şer’iyye sicilleri. Amnon Cohen’s work on the sixteenth-century Jewish community of Jerusalem4, Haim Gerber’s book on Jewish tax farmers in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries5, Fatma Müge Göçek’s book chapter on the inheritance records of the Chief Rabbi of Galata6, Minna Rozen’s article on the private-public sphere of sixteenth and seventeenth-century Istanbul Jews7, Mahmoud Yazbak’s book chapter on Muslim-Jewish relations in Haifa8 and Cengiz Şişman’s article presenting a case study from the Hasköy Court9 are just some of these studies.10

  • 11 It is used for members of other religions who live alongside Muslims as citizens in lands where Isl (...)
  • 12 M. S. Goodblatt, Jewish Life in Turkey…, 122.
  • 13 The rabbis of Istanbul and Salonica forbade recourse to the Ottoman courts except in matters of tax (...)

3Jews, Ottoman subjects classified as zımmi11 under Islamic law, appear in many records in Ottoman court registers. There are widespread but inaccurate interpretations of Jews, who under Islamic law had their own religious courts where they were entitled to resolve cases among themselves. Such interpretations include Jews resorting to Ottoman courts out of necessity in extra-communal cases, applying to Ottoman courts in cases involving specific issues such as trade and inheritance, or consulting to Ottoman courts when they expected to win the case by bribing the kadı in cases they knew they would lose.12 Although such interpretations may be acceptable in some respects, it is possible to say that Jews were forbidden to apply to the Ottoman courts by the rabbis of the community except for certain cases,13 and yet they appear in many cases in the şer’iyye sicilleri. These cases were not only the cases of Jews against Muslims or Christians. There are also cases between Jews themselves. Moreover, these cases were not only about buying and selling, credit and tax issues, as one might think. Besides commercial cases, it is possible to find many judgments reflecting social, cultural, legal, and administrative relations. The existence of such cases can be identified from the records of a single cosmopolitan district court.

  • 14 Hasköy Court, Registry No. 5. This registry is published within the scope of the İstanbul Kadı Sici (...)

4This study deals with the Jews recorded in the Hasköy Mahkemesi 5 Numaralı Sicil Defteri14 between 1612 and 1643. Based on these records, this article aims to question the general assumptions that Jews rarely appealed to the Ottoman courts for cases between themselves, that they resorted only for certain types of cases, and that they were self-enclosed and did not interact with society other than themselves.

Hasköy as a Jewish Settlement

  • 15 S. F. Göncüoğlu, “Hasköy”.

5Hasköy is a historical region located on the northern shore of the Golden Horn in Istanbul. There are various rumors about where the region got its name. One of these rumors is based on the fact that Mehmed II established his tent in this region during the siege of Istanbul, while the other one is that the name Hasköy comes from the private gardens of the Sultan in the region. Another view is that the name Hasköy derives from Paraskevi, the largest Church in the region.15

  • 16 M. Rozen, “A History of the Jewish…”, 5–6.
  • 17 S. Yerasimos, “La Communauté Juive…”, 113–114, 119.
  • 18 S. F. Göncüoğlu, “Hasköy”.
  • 19 U. Heyd, “The Jewish Communities…”, 309–312.

6Hasköy is one of the oldest Jewish settlements in Istanbul in that it was home to Jews during the Byzantine period even before the establishment of the Ottoman Empire. An account dated 1147 of the Second Crusade mentions the existence of a Jewish community in the Picridion region, which includes Hasköy and Kasımpaşa.16 After Istanbul came under Ottoman rule, many Jews settled in the city and Hasköy continued its development as a Jewish neighborhood. In the last decade of the fifteenth-century, Sephardic Jews expelled from Spain and Portugal also settled in the region. It is possible to find many archival records showing the Jewish presence in Hasköy.17 In 1597, a development that increased the population of Jews in Hasköy is notable. With the start of the construction of the Yeni Valide Mosque in Eminönü, the Karaite Jews who owned the land of the mosque were given houses in the Hasköy region. Approximately 40 families transferred to these houses were exempted from taxes.18 In addition to this development that led to an increase in the population in the region, another group of Karaite Jews had to settle in Hasköy after the fire in 1660. The 1691 poll tax records show the names of Jewish neighborhoods and the number of taxpayers. It is understood from these records that over five thousand Jews were taxpayers and 515 of them were from Hasköy. The Hasköy neighborhood ranks fourth in terms of population after Balat, Galata and Ortaköy.19 As can be understood, Hasköy continued to grow after the Ottomans took control of Istanbul and continued its development until the end of the seventeenth-century.

  • 20 E. Çelebi, Günümüz Türkçesiyle Evliyâ Çelebi Seyahatnâmesi…, 375.

7Hasköy, which became one of the major centers for Jews, had a cosmopolitan structure in that it was home not only to Jews but also to Greeks, Armenians, and Muslims. This situation was also reflected in the travelogues written in that period. Evliya Çelebi, who lived in the seventeenth-century, stated that there were one Muslim, one Armenian, two Greek, and eleven Jewish neighborhoods in Hasköy. He wrote that the population of the Jews, the most populous group in the region, gradually increased and reached eleven thousand and that Hasköy was filled with Jews like the cities of Salonica and Safed.20 As mentioned, Jews constituted the majority of Hasköy’s population and played an active role in the economic and social life of the region, which can be confirmed by the fact that Jews were involved in many cases and judgments in the Hasköy Court.

Jews in the Hasköy Court Registry No. 5

  • 21 C. Yılmaz (ed.), İstanbul Kadı Sicilleri…, 19–20.

8During the Ottoman period, the courts of Istanbul were divided into four, namely Istanbul (suriçi), Üsküdar, Galata and Eyüp. The Hasköy Court functioned as a regency under the Eyüp Court and the Hasköy kadıs who served as regents were appointed by the Eyüp kadıs. Hasköy Court, Registry No. 5 is dated to the years 1612–1643. It consists of 321 pages and contains 632 judgments. The records in the book are mostly in Turkish and there are 88 records in Arabic.21

  • 22 C. Yılmaz (ed.), İstanbul Kadı Sicilleri…, 20–23.

9Since the Hasköy region had a cosmopolitan structure, the court records are abundant in content and the groups included in the judgments. The main topics of the registry are family matters, economic and commercial life, records on foundations, rulings on slaves and concubines, judicial events, tax issues, prohibitions on alcohol and taverns, and the security of the people of the neighborhood.22 In line with the registry, the records pertaining to Jews can be broadly categorized as commercial provisions, legal and judicial records, records on slaves and concubines, social matters, and official decisions.

(1) Records Concerning Commercial Relationships

10Registry No. 5 contains mostly records involving commercial relations. These can be categorized as sales, leases, receivables and payables, partnerships, pledges, and refunds. Within these groups, sales records are the most common group, followed by records related to debt and credit issues. In terms of sales contracts, about two-thirds of the records in the registry are between Muslims and Jews. These records that are between Muslims and Jews include the selling of some properties between them.

  • 23 C. Yılmaz (ed.), İstanbul Kadı Sicilleri…, 75, 76, 77, 92, 132, 227, 228, 236, 291, 365, 376, 377.

Sale Contracts between Jews and Muslims23

Seller

Buyer

Sold goods

Note

İsak v. İlya

Ahmed Ağa b. Mehmed

house

Kalef v. Baroh

Mahi bt. Abdullah

land

Pîrî b. Rıdvan and Hüseyin b. Pîrî

their neighbor Yahuda

the vacant land

Mustafa Ağa b. İbrahim

Yahya v. Haron

storehouse

Haron v. İbrayil

Hatice Hatun bt. Abdullah

the garden, storehouse and fishgart

Şemetay v. İlya

Mehmed b. Maksud

house

Seyfi b. Pîrî

Yahuda v. Abraham

house

Masko v. İsrayil

Mustafa Bey b. Mehmed

two grocery stores

with a three-year maturity and repurchase agreement

Masko v. İsrayil

Mustafa Bey b. Mehmed

storehouse

with a two-year maturity and repurchase agreement

11Two of the other sale records are between Christians and Jews.

  • 24 C. Yılmaz (ed.), İstanbul Kadı Sicilleri…, 81, 82, 243.

Sale Contracts between Jews and Christians24

Seller

Buyer

Sold goods

Note

Yasef v. David and his brother

Kostantin v. Andriye

vineyards

Liyaro bt. Nikola

İlya v. Avraham

house

with repurchase agreement

12The remaining records cover sales transactions among the Jews themselves.

  • 25 C. Yılmaz (ed.), İstanbul Kadı Sicilleri…, 102, 103, 151, 152, 193, 194, 197, 198, 308, 312, 360.

Sale Contracts between Jews25

Seller

Buyer

Sold goods

Erhendepole bt. Yasef

Baroh v. Menahim

house

Esterkekile bt. Yahudabâli

Her deceased husband’s brother Salamon

shares of the house

Şeban v. David

Haron v. Ahil, Salamon v. Mosi and Hayem v. Salamon

house

Menahim v. Hanka

Mihail v. Menahim and his brothers Baroh and Harsule

home lot

Hanka v. Yasef

His brother İlya

house and garden

Gur v. Menahim

Simon

house

Evharon v. İsrâyil

Simon v. İsak

house

13The sales transactions indicate that Jews were either buyers or sellers. The records also reflect that different religious groups were intertwined in commercial life. Records of transactions between Jews themselves account for approximately two-thirds of the total. This statistic suggests that the argument that Jews rarely resorted to the Ottoman courts in cases between themselves should be approached with caution.

14Some points are noteworthy in the sales contracts. As in other registry records, there are differences in the registration of Muslims and non-Muslims. While the abbreviation b. (bin) is used for Muslims, the abbreviation v. (veled) is used for non-Muslims. Additionally, while Christians were recorded as zımmis, Jews were recorded as Jews, not as zımmis despite they were in zımmi status. It is noteworthy that women were found in the sale transactions, which calls into question the assumption that they were not visible in Ottoman social life. When we examine the goods sold, we see that in addition to houses, there are commodities such as lands, gardens, fishgarths, storehouses, grocery stores, property vineyards, and house shares. The methods of payment such as advance payment, deferred sale, and repurchase agreement provide clues to Ottoman economic life.

15Similar to sales transactions, the records on assets and liabilities relations also show how intertwined different religious groups were. Approximately a quarter of the accounts of receivables and payables involving Jews contain transactions between Muslims and Jews. The proportion of credit and debit transactions between the two communities is lower than that of sales contracts.

  • 26 C. Yılmaz (ed.), İstanbul Kadı Sicilleri…, 138, 145, 213, 217, 366.

Borrowing and Lending Relationship Between Jews and Muslims26

Lender

Debtor

Provision

Akive v. Elyezer

Mustafa Çelebi

payment of boathouse rental debt

İsak v. Salamon

Sirkeci Süleyman

the debt of store rent

Seyyid Mehmed

Puna v. Kemal

failure to claim for debt

Mehmed Bey

Salamon v. Avraham

payment of the debt after ten months

Yahuda

Pîrî b. Nasuh

pledge of a house against the debt

16About half of the records consist of transactions between Christians and Jews.

  • 27 C. Yılmaz (ed.), İstanbul Kadı Sicilleri…, 136, 168, 177, 209, 346, 368, 369, 226, 319, 335, 338, 2 (...)

Borrowing and Lending Relationship Between Jews and Christians27

  • 28 This word is used to mean Spanish real. A. Atar, “XVIII. Asır Fetva Mecmuaları…”, 71.

Lender

Debtor

Provision

Hrito v. Rizo

Kemal v. Yahuda

failure to claim for debt

Salamon v. Pason

Sailor Rodokapo v. Yakomi

getting maturity for debt

Yorgi v. Nikola

Bostancı Kemal

collection of receivables from vegetable crop

Salamon v. Gelson

Kostantin v. Andriye

maturity of hundred days for the debt

İsak v. Benefşe

Yemendi v. Nikola

borrowing ten riyali guruş28 with a maturity of a year

Elyakom v. Karakaş

Yenabor v. Aleksi

advise to pay the debt

Yehya v. Nesan

Todoraki v. Tranoz

advise to pay the debt by voucher

Mosi v. Salamon from Kadiz congregation

Armenians named Misak v. Serkis, Parihân v. Gülâz ve Arzhan v. Civan

payment of the debt after seven months

İsak v. Benefşe

Canik and Manik veledey Anberkeşân and Hayem v. Manik

payment of the debt after one hundred thirty six days

Yasef v. İsak

Candle maker Rizo v. Apostol and Harto and Yorgi veledey Rizo

the sale of candle manufactory with a repurchase agreement by Christians

İsak v. Avraham

Yorgi v. Rezo

repayment of the money used for buying the candles

17The transactions between the Jews themselves, which constitute the last quarter, are in the following table:

  • 29 C. Yılmaz (ed.), İstanbul Kadı Sicilleri…, 127, 146, 147, 149, 150.

Borrowing and Lending Relationship Between Jews29

Lender

Debtor

Provision

Avraham v. Yasef

Senan v. Hayem

receival of the money and belongings bailed before

Akive v. Elyezer

Gavril v. Senyore

payment of the debt

Furuşte

Yasef and Panariye

giving the shares of the house in return for the debt of their deceased father

Furuşte

Yasef and Panariye

giving the shares of the house in return for the dowry debt of their deceased father

18It is understood that the cases of credit and debit were not related to a single community, nor was any one group the sole debtor or creditor. Jews lent to Christians and Muslims as well as borrowed from them. Practices such as debts, the ruling that debts must be paid, the inability to prove debts in some cases, the pledging of certain commodities against debts, the ability to repay debts not only with money but also with various products, and the granting of time extension for payments are remarkable data in understanding Ottoman economic life.

  • 30 C. Yılmaz (ed.), İstanbul Kadı Sicilleri…, 188.
  • 31 C. Yılmaz (ed.), İstanbul Kadı Sicilleri…, 80, 372, 373.
  • 32 For more information see: M. Rozen, “Public Space and Private Space…”, 341–345.

19Among the records on commercial relations, there is also a record on the termination of a partnership contract. At the end of a lawsuit between a Christian and a Jew, Dimo v. Mihal was ruled to leave the partnership by taking his capital from the tavern in which he was a partner.30 Although the partnership ended in this case, the situation suggests that there may be other examples of different religious groups doing business together. There are also two lease agreements in the records. Both contracts were between Muslims and Jews. The first is Mahmud Bey b. Mirza’s lease of the house, storehouse, and coffee house to Salamon v. Yasef, and the second is Belkıs bt. Mustafa renting the room of the Yahudihâne to Yasef and Avraham.31 These records not only show how diverse the cases involving Jews were and how they interacted with other groups but also provide significant information about the places existing at that period. The existence of places such as the Yahudihâne32, which means a building with many rooms and sections where Jews lived together, coffee houses, grocery stores, and vinegar shops are considerable clues for understanding the life, social, and economic life of the Jewish community.

(2) Records on Legal Matters

20Although the number of records that can be categorized as legal in the Hasköy Court’s decisions regarding the Jews is less than the records on commercial relations, they rank first in terms of the variety of cases. Under this heading, there are records on issues such as grants, inheritance, transfer of rights, bail, surrogation, reconciliation, crimes, prohibitions and death.

  • 33 C. Yılmaz (ed.), İstanbul Kadı Sicilleri…, 111, 378.
  • 34 C. Yılmaz (ed.), İstanbul Kadı Sicilleri…, 121, 122.
  • 35 C. Yılmaz (ed.), İstanbul Kadı Sicilleri…, 153, 154.

21There are two grant records in the registry. The first one of these is a record in which David v. Avraham from the Kadiz congregation donated his house with some belongings to his sons Nesimi, Yasef, Menahim and İsak in equal shares. The second one is the record of Mosi v. İsrail, a member of the Portuguese congregation, donating his house to his wife.33 There are also two inheritance records in the registry. The first record shows that Estrapola bt. Yasef, the wife of the deceased Jew named Mosi, collected her share of the inheritance and the bridewealth.34 The second record is about a dispute between Yasef and Panariye over the inheritance of their deceased father Salamon.35 Since the grant and inheritance issues were family matters, they were cases that took place between Jews. However, it should be noted here that Jews applied to the Ottoman courts for a case that they could have resolved in their own courts.

  • 36 C. Yılmaz (ed.), İstanbul Kadı Sicilleri…, 133, 220, 221, 229, 333.

22There are four records regarding the transfer of rights. The first one is Ahmed Bey b. Abdülmennân’s transfer of the right of disposition pertaining to the waqf house to Salamon v. Avraham, and second one is Mehmed Bey b. Mustafa’s transfer of the right of disposition of the waqf shops to Salamon v. Avraham. Third one is Ahmed Çelebi b. Muslu’s transfer of the waqf shops to Salamon v. Avraham, and the last one is Halil Efendi and Sefer Bey’s transfer of the waqf orchard they shared to Yahuda v. Avraham.36 It is noteworthy that all of the transfers of rights recorded in the registry were from Muslims to Jews and related to waqf properties. Furthermore, these cases again involve the relationship between different religious groups.

  • 37 C. Yılmaz (ed.), İstanbul Kadı Sicilleri…, 136, 147, 359, 360.

23Another legal issue is related to bail. According to the records, Mehmed b. Bilal vouched for Mustafa b. Halil’s rent debt to Akive v. Elyezer. Avraham v. Yaro vouched for Gavril v. Senyore who was in prison for his debt to Akive v. Elyezer, and a Christian named Döne bt. Eslâh vouched for Yasef v. Yusuf for his debt to Naso v. David.37 In another case, the Jewish community demanded a guarantor for an incident, after the guarantor Muslim was acquitted. What is noteworthy in the bail cases is that the communities were not sharply separated from each other. A person could act as a voucher for his own co-religionist as well as for individuals from other religious groups.

  • 38 C. Yılmaz (ed.), İstanbul Kadı Sicilleri…, 143, 133, 134, 149.

24There is a different situation in the cases concerning deputation. In all three deputation records in the registry, Jews were appointed as regents for other Jews. There is no commonality with other groups in deputation cases. However, based on only three records, it would not be correct to say that the Jews only practiced deputation among themselves. The cases reflected in the records are Yahuda v. Avraham appointing Lazar v. Yasef as regent for the sale of his house and garden, Yahuda v. Avraham giving power of attorney to Lazar v. Yasef for the sale of his house and garden, and Furuşte bt. Yahuda appointing his son Yasef v. Salamon as regent for the sale of his house.38

25It is understood from the records that some cases were settled or the parties were reconciled.

  • 39 C. Yılmaz (ed.), İstanbul Kadı Sicilleri…, 69, 272, 383, 250, 307, 308.

Reconciliation Cases39

Litigants

Type of case

Provision

Mehmed b. Şemseddin – Kemal v. İlya

action of debt

reconciliation

Yasef v. Şemon

property debt (house)

reconciliation

Haydar v. Yasef – Mustafa b. Murad

action of debt

reconciliation

Mahmud Bey b. Mirza – Yako v. Yako

discord on residential area

withdrawal of the case

Hanka v. Yasef

house deed

resolved

  • 40 C. Yılmaz (ed.), İstanbul Kadı Sicilleri…, 148, 149, 221, 222.
  • 41 C. Yılmaz (ed.), İstanbul Kadı Sicilleri…, 278, 332, 406.
  • 42 C. Yılmaz (ed.), İstanbul Kadı Sicilleri…, 262, 305, 400.

26Other topics that can be included under the heading of legal cases are crimes, prohibitions and criminal cases. This category includes both cases between Jews with each other and cases between Jews and other communities. According to the first record, Kemal v. Marol, a resident of Hasköy, complained about the taverners Kostantin and İstemad for not closing their taverns until dawn and causing problems in the neighborhood, whereupon the Christian tavern keepers were warned. Another judgment is related to a case between Jews and concerns about Menahim v. Yahuda’s beating his brother Mosi.40 The rest of the records are related to prohibitions against Jews. These include the prohibition of Jews passing through Hasköy playing instruments, the prevention of Jews and Christians bringing and selling alcohol into Istanbul, and the prohibition of Jews and Christians using slaves.41 These sample records provide valuable data for understanding Ottoman social life. These examples reflected in the Hasköy Court registers show that the Ottomans made concessions on issues prohibited by Islamic law and were flexible in terms of prohibitions against non-Muslims. Apart from these, there are three death cases in the registry. These are Döne bt. Salamon’s female slave who died of natural causes on the road, the discovery of the body of Avraham v. Yasef who drowned in the sea, and the proceedings against a Jew who was found dead.42

(3) Records on Social Issues

27Most of the records under this heading concern slaves. These records are generally related to their emancipation.

  • 43 C. Yılmaz (ed.), İstanbul Kadı Sicilleri…, 100, 101, 103, 107, 109, 110, 166, 171, 191, 389, 405.

Jews in Slavery43

Jewish Slave Owners

Female Slaves

The Origin of Slaves

Provision

Baba v. Avraham

Nâce bt. Yogi (concubine)

Mora

emancipation

Estâre bt. Mosi

Roçoka bt. Ebderiye (concubine)

Russian descent

emancipation

Avraham v. Hayem and his brothers

Otine bt. Bevân (concubine)

Koron

emancipation

Mihal v. Flodi from Dimetoka congregation

Kane bt. Maksimon (concubine)

Koron

emancipation

İshak v. Yasef

Anaşte bt. Safka (concubine)

Koron

emancipation on the condition of 3 years of service

Mosi v. Salamon from Kataran congregation

Yarisa bt. Lecko (concubine)

Koron

emancipation on the condition of 5 years of service

Mosi v. Yasef from Kordova congregation

Anna bt. Yuvan (concubine)

-

emancipation on the condition of 3 years of service

İshak v. Yasef

Andriya v. Ota (slave)

Russian descent

sale of the female slave to Todori v. Nikola

28In seven of the eight records in the table, female slaves are recorded as concubines, while only one is recorded as a slave of Russian origin. It is likely that this single slave was a domestic slave. It is notable that most of the female slaves were from the Morea. There is also a provision for the payment of a diet and the liberation of a captive held by a Jew named Kostine. These provisions show that the use of concubines and slaves existed among Jews and that women could also own concubines. Based on the records, it can be stated that there was no strict slavery system in Ottoman society and that there was class transitivity.

  • 44 C. Yılmaz (ed.), İstanbul Kadı Sicilleri…, 144, 404, 399, 400.

29Hasköy Court records also contain decisions taken regarding community life. For example, upon the request of the people of Hasköy, including the Jews, it was decided not to remove the police station but to keep it in its old location. Another example is the appointment of Yahuda v. Nesimi as a guard for the gates of the neighborhood. The last example is the presence of Jewish butchers among the butchers to whom sheep were delivered in Hasköy.44

  • 45 C. Yılmaz (ed.), İstanbul Kadı Sicilleri…, 306, 262, 295, 296.

30The records related to landscaping are also noteworthy. Such records include decisions as follows: Yako was given the task of cleaning up the empty land that was used as a midden upon the complaint of the people, Yako gave permission to his neighbor Akive to drain the sewage of his toilet into the sea from his own property, and that Akive v. Elyezer bought a part of his neighbor Yako v. Yako’s land close to the sea to drain sewage and was not prevented from doing so.45

31As can be seen from the three subheadings, there are many provisions related to Jews in the Hasköy Court Registry No. 5. These judgments include not only the cases between Jews and Muslims and Jews and Christians, but also cases related to the internal affairs of the Jews themselves. These examples can be multiplied in number and variety by looking at the registers of the same court from different years and the decisions of different courts regarding Jews.

Conclusion

32Ottoman court registers are one of the most noteworthy sources for research on the place and status of Jews in Ottoman society. Thanks to these documents, new studies can be produced by analyzing the commercial, social, and legal issues of Jews with other communities and their relations with the state. Such studies will contribute to questioning and even updating the generally accepted information on the status of Jews in Ottoman society.

33Hasköy, which was a Jewish settlement even before the Ottoman period, is an important region for analyzing the social relations of the Jews and their cases in the Ottoman courts. Hasköy, which gradually continued its development with the Ottoman rule and hosted a significant Jewish population, has a cosmopolitan structure with its Christians and Muslims. In parallel, commercial, social and cultural relations between religious groups were remarkably intense. As a matter of fact, the records in the Hasköy Court Registry No. 5 reflect such a situation. There are many commercial, legal and social cases in the court records, which are multifaceted in terms of the parties and diverse in terms of the content of the records. As well as the cases between Jews and Muslims and Christians, there are also cases between Jews within themselves. Besides specific cases such as taxation, sales contracts, and property, Jews applied to the Ottoman courts on many social issues.

34In conclusion, the Hasköy Court records covering the cases between 1612–1643 show that the arguments that Jews lived their lives in isolation from society, resolved their cases in their own courts unless necessary, and applied to the Ottoman courts in limited cases are not true. The present article is a modest attempt to explain the intensity and diversity of Jewish litigation through the registers of the Hasköy Court of Istanbul for a short period of time. While analyzing the records, it should be kept in mind that Hasköy was a cosmopolitan area with a dense Jewish population. In less cosmopolitan and less Jewish-populated areas, of course, one may not find such a large number and variety of records. This study might instill further research elaborating on the data of distinct communities in terms of homogeneity.

Top of page

Bibliography

AKGÜNDÜZ, Ahmed, “İslam Hukukunun Osmanlı Devletinde Tatbiki: Şer’iye Mahkemeleri ve Şer’iye Sicilleri,” İslam Hukuku Araştırmaları Dergisi 14 (2009), pp. 13–48.

ATAR, Abdülkadir, “XVIII. Asır Fetva Mecmuaları Işığında Osmanlı’da Tedavül Aracı Olarak Kullanılan Paralar,” İnsan ve Toplum Bilimleri Araştırmaları Dergisi 6, n.º 1 (2017), pp. 61–85.

COHEN, Amnon, Ottoman Documents on the Jewish Community of Jerusalem in the Sixteenth Century, Jerusalem, Hotsa’at Yad Yitshak Ben-Tsevi, 1976.

COHEN, Amnon, “On the Realities of the Millet System: Jerusalem in the Sixteenth Century,” in Christians and Jews in the Ottoman Empire, ed. Benjamin Braude and Bernard Lewis, New York, Holmes & Meier Publishers, 1982, pp. 7–17.

COHEN, Amnon, Jewish Life Under Islam-Jerusalem in the Sixteenth Century, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press, 1984.

ÇELEBİ, Evliya, Günümüz Türkçesiyle Evliyâ Çelebi Seyahatnâmesi: İstanbul, ed. Seyit Ali Kahraman and Yücel Dağlı, İstanbul, Yapı Kredi Yayınları, 2008.

FAYDA, Mustafa, “Zimmî,” accessed March 27, 2024 at TDV İslâm Ansiklopedisi. https://islamansiklopedisi.org.tr/zimmi#1

GERBER, Haim, Economy and Society in an Ottoman City: Bursa, 1600-1700, Jerusalem, The Hebrew University, 1988.

GERBER, Haim, “Jewish Tax-Farmers in the Ottoman Empire in the 16th and 17th Centuries,” Journal of Turkish Studies X (1986), pp. 143–154.

GOODBLATT, Morris S, Jewish Life in Turkey in the XVIth Century as Reflected in the Legal Writings of Samuel de Medina, New York, The Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1952.

GÖÇEK, Fatma Müge, “Ottoman Archival Information on Jews: The Inheritance Register of the Chief-Rabbi of Galata (1770),” in The Jews of the Ottoman Empire, ed. Avigdor Levy, Princeton, Darwin Press, 1994, pp. 705–716.

GÖNCÜOĞLU, Süleyman Faruk, “Hasköy,” accessed March 27, 2024 at TDV İslâm Ansiklopedisi. https://islamansiklopedisi.org.tr/haskoy--istanbul

HEYD, Uriel, “The Jewish Communities of Istanbul in the Seventeenth Century,” Oriens 6, n.º 2 (1953), pp. 299–314.

İYİGÖNÜL ATASAĞUN, Ş. Şule, “Orta Halli İstanbullu Kadınların Servet Birikimleri Üzerine Bir Değerlendirme (1656-1676),” in Terekeler Neyi Derler? Miras Kayıtlarının İzinde Osmanlı Araştırmaları, ed. Kenan Yıldız, İstanbul, Ketebe Kitap ve Dergi Yayıncılığı A.Ş., 2023, pp. 315–352.

JENNINGS, Ronald C, “Women in Early 17th Century Ottoman Judicial Records-the Sharia Court of Anatolian Kayseri,” Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 18, n.º 1 (1975), pp. 53–114.

MARCUS, Abraham, The Middle East on the Eve of Modernity: Aleppo in the Eighteenth Century, New York, Columbia University Press, 1989.

ROZEN, Minna, A History of the Jewish Community in Istanbul The Formative Years, 1453-1566, Leiden, Brill, 2010.

ROZEN, Minna, “Public Space and Private Space Among the Jews of Istanbul in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries,” Turcica 30 (1998), pp. 331–346.

ŞİŞMAN, Cengiz, “Osmanlı “Millet”lerinin Girift İlişkileri: 17. Yüzyıl Hasköy Şer’iyye Sicillerinde Kaydedilen Bir Cinayet Öyküsü,” Osmanlı Araştırmaları XX (2000), pp. 385–399.

UĞUR, Yunus, “Şer’iyye Sicilleri,” accessed March 27, 2024 at TDV İslâm Ansiklopedisi. https://islamansiklopedisi.org.tr/seriyye-sicilleri

UĞUR, Yunus, “Mahkeme Kayıtları (Şer’iye Sicilleri): Literatür Değerlendirmesi ve Bibliyografya,” Türkiye Araştırmaları Literatür Dergisi 1, n.º 1 (2003), pp. 305–344.

YAZBAK, Mahmoud, “Jewish-Muslim Social and Economic Relations in Haifa (1870-1914), According to Sicil Registers,” in Aspects of Ottoman History, ed. Amy Singer and Amnon Cohen, Jerusalem, Magnes Press, 1994, pp. 114–125.

YERASIMOS, Stéphane, “La Communauté Juive D’istanbul a la fin du XVIe Siècle,” Turcica 27 (1995), pp. 101–130.

YILMAZ, Coşkun (ed.), İstanbul Kadı Sicilleri Hasköy Mahkemesi 5 Numaralı Sicil (H. 1020-1053 / M. 1612-1643), İstanbul, Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Araştırmaları Merkezi (İSAM), 2011.

Top of page

Notes

1 Y. Uğur, “Şer’iyye Sicilleri”.

2 For more detailed information on the Sharia courts and the duties of the kadı, see: A. Akgündüz, “İslam Hukukunun Osmanlı Devletinde Tatbiki…”, 14–19.

3 Ronald C. Jennings’s study of the women of the seventeenth-century city of Kayseri from a legal perspective is recognized as the pioneering work in this field. Later, Haim Gerber analyzed the women of seventeenth-century Bursa from a social and economic perspective and Abraham Marcus analyzed the women of 18th-century Aleppo from the perspective of property ownership, contributing to the development of studies on women in the Ottoman Empire. Ş. Ş. İyigönül Atasağun, “Orta Halli İstanbullu Kadınların…”, 316. For the aforementioned studies see: R. Jennings, “Women in Early 17th Century…”; H. Gerber, Economy and Society…; A. Marcus, The Middle East on the Eve of Modernity…

4 A. Cohen, Ottoman Documents on the Jewish Community…; A. Cohen, “On the Realities…”; A. Cohen, Jewish Life Under Islam…

5 H. Gerber, “Jewish Tax-Farmers…”, 143–154.

6 F. M. Göçek, “Ottoman Archival Information…”, 705–716.

7 M. Rozen, “Public Space and Private Space…”, 331–346.

8 M. Yazbak, “Jewish-Muslim Social…”, 114–125.

9 C. Şişman, “Osmanlı “Millet”lerinin Girift İlişkileri…”, 385–399.

10 For a literature review and bibliography on şer’iyye sicilleri, see: Y. Uğur, “Mahkeme Kayıtları (Şer’iye Sicilleri)…”, 305–344.

11 It is used for members of other religions who live alongside Muslims as citizens in lands where Islam is dominant. Literally, a person who is given security or protection. M. Fayda, “Zimmî”.

12 M. S. Goodblatt, Jewish Life in Turkey…, 122.

13 The rabbis of Istanbul and Salonica forbade recourse to the Ottoman courts except in matters of taxation, contracts of sale, real estate matters and litigation with Muslims. For example, the Salonican rabbi Samuel de Medina believed that resorting to the Ottoman courts in matters other than those mentioned would cause the Mosaic Law to lose its validity. Goodblatt, 122–123.

14 Hasköy Court, Registry No. 5. This registry is published within the scope of the İstanbul Kadı Sicilleri Project realized in partnership with Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality Culture Inc. and Medipol University Faculty of Law. C. Yılmaz (ed.), İstanbul Kadı Sicilleri.

15 S. F. Göncüoğlu, “Hasköy”.

16 M. Rozen, “A History of the Jewish…”, 5–6.

17 S. Yerasimos, “La Communauté Juive…”, 113–114, 119.

18 S. F. Göncüoğlu, “Hasköy”.

19 U. Heyd, “The Jewish Communities…”, 309–312.

20 E. Çelebi, Günümüz Türkçesiyle Evliyâ Çelebi Seyahatnâmesi…, 375.

21 C. Yılmaz (ed.), İstanbul Kadı Sicilleri…, 19–20.

22 C. Yılmaz (ed.), İstanbul Kadı Sicilleri…, 20–23.

23 C. Yılmaz (ed.), İstanbul Kadı Sicilleri…, 75, 76, 77, 92, 132, 227, 228, 236, 291, 365, 376, 377.

24 C. Yılmaz (ed.), İstanbul Kadı Sicilleri…, 81, 82, 243.

25 C. Yılmaz (ed.), İstanbul Kadı Sicilleri…, 102, 103, 151, 152, 193, 194, 197, 198, 308, 312, 360.

26 C. Yılmaz (ed.), İstanbul Kadı Sicilleri…, 138, 145, 213, 217, 366.

27 C. Yılmaz (ed.), İstanbul Kadı Sicilleri…, 136, 168, 177, 209, 346, 368, 369, 226, 319, 335, 338, 202, 203.

28 This word is used to mean Spanish real. A. Atar, “XVIII. Asır Fetva Mecmuaları…”, 71.

29 C. Yılmaz (ed.), İstanbul Kadı Sicilleri…, 127, 146, 147, 149, 150.

30 C. Yılmaz (ed.), İstanbul Kadı Sicilleri…, 188.

31 C. Yılmaz (ed.), İstanbul Kadı Sicilleri…, 80, 372, 373.

32 For more information see: M. Rozen, “Public Space and Private Space…”, 341–345.

33 C. Yılmaz (ed.), İstanbul Kadı Sicilleri…, 111, 378.

34 C. Yılmaz (ed.), İstanbul Kadı Sicilleri…, 121, 122.

35 C. Yılmaz (ed.), İstanbul Kadı Sicilleri…, 153, 154.

36 C. Yılmaz (ed.), İstanbul Kadı Sicilleri…, 133, 220, 221, 229, 333.

37 C. Yılmaz (ed.), İstanbul Kadı Sicilleri…, 136, 147, 359, 360.

38 C. Yılmaz (ed.), İstanbul Kadı Sicilleri…, 143, 133, 134, 149.

39 C. Yılmaz (ed.), İstanbul Kadı Sicilleri…, 69, 272, 383, 250, 307, 308.

40 C. Yılmaz (ed.), İstanbul Kadı Sicilleri…, 148, 149, 221, 222.

41 C. Yılmaz (ed.), İstanbul Kadı Sicilleri…, 278, 332, 406.

42 C. Yılmaz (ed.), İstanbul Kadı Sicilleri…, 262, 305, 400.

43 C. Yılmaz (ed.), İstanbul Kadı Sicilleri…, 100, 101, 103, 107, 109, 110, 166, 171, 191, 389, 405.

44 C. Yılmaz (ed.), İstanbul Kadı Sicilleri…, 144, 404, 399, 400.

45 C. Yılmaz (ed.), İstanbul Kadı Sicilleri…, 306, 262, 295, 296.

Top of page

References

Electronic reference

Talha Kaan Ünlü, “A Study on the Visibility of Jews in Ottoman Courts: The Example of Hasköy Court (1612–1643)”Hamsa [Online], 10 | 2024, Online since 21 October 2024, connection on 12 February 2026. URL: http://journals.openedition.org/hamsa/4562; DOI: https://doi.org/10.4000/12jj6

Top of page

About the author

Talha Kaan Ünlü

Political Science and Public Administration Department, Amasya University, Turkey
International Ottoman Studies Department, Istanbul Medeniyet University, Turkey
talhakaanunlu@gmail.com

Top of page

Copyright

CC-BY-NC-ND-4.0

The text only may be used under licence CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. All other elements (illustrations, imported files) may be subject to specific use terms.

Top of page
Search OpenEdition Search

You will be redirected to OpenEdition Search