Geniza Lab

Legal document. Court ruling. Dated: July 1084. Written in the hand of Hillel b. Eli. Location: Fustat. Yaḥyā b. Samuel sues Amram b. Abraham for various commodities (wool, flax, and cinnamon in exchange for silk robes, silver scammony, and saffron) which represent the former’s investment with the latter. However, Amram seems to have placed the items in the care of Abū al-Ḥusayn al-Tinnīsī, who seems to have assumed responsibility for them by means of a power of attorney. Apparently, Aaron sold the items and prepared an account sheet, remitting the balance to Amram, who then settled his account with Yaḥyā. At the time the matter is to be adjudicated, Amram has left Fusṭāṭ and Yaḥyā asks for a continuance. Yefet b. Avraham, counterparty in the sale of a quantity of silver to Abū al-Ḥusayn, also appears in a number of geniza documents. (Information from Lieberman, "A Partnership Culture," 110). Verso seems to contain another legal discussion with the same partners over similar issues.

Legal document. Court proceeding. Location: Fustat. Dated: February 1160. Ḥiyya b. Yiṣḥaq (the son of Isaac b. Samuel ha-Sefardī) invested 65 dinars with Abū al-Ḥasan Ibn Ṭibān Tobijah ha-Levi al-Tājir b. Abū Sa‘d Samuel ha-Levi al-Tājir as a commenda, with profits to be split evenly between the two. Trading losses reduced the capital to 39 dinars, and Ḥiyya retained Abū al-Rabī‘ Suleymān Solomon ha-Kohen al-‘Aṭṭār b. Judah ha-Kohen to collect the remaining proceeds from Tobijah. Solomon received 30 of the 39 dinars he expected, the same amount which Solomon seems to have advanced Ḥiyya prior to Solomon’s departure. Abū al-Tājir Adōnīm Nānū collects an additional 10 dinars, which he had also advanced Ḥiyya. The document does not specify any initial partnership stipulations in terms of losses, but the court seems to have ruled that Abū al-Ḥasan was liable for one-third of the losses of 26 dinars (eight and two-thirds dinars). Having already repaid 40 dinars, he still owes seven and two-thirds dinars. For this balance, Abū al-Ḥasan wrote a debt document. Abū al-Ḥasan was then free of any obligation to Ḥiyya, and Solomon handed over the document that obligated Abū al-Ḥasan in the portion of the commenda assets, though he was clear that Abū al-Ḥasan was still subject to the "oath of partners", indicating that Abū al-Ḥasan would be liable for mishandling of the commenda assets. (Information from Lieberman, "A Partnership Culture," 238)