AI en Translation, Pages 1-25
Page 3
To the honorable Governor of Personal Matters at the Court of First Instance in Baghdad, respected,
The woman named Lulu, daughter of Ezra son of Isaac Saleh, wife of the deceased Eliyahu son of Baruch son of Yehuda, has
claimed in this Jewish Religious Court against Zion son of Baruch son of Yehuda, one of the heirs of the aforementioned deceased,
in his capacity as one of the heirs of the aforementioned deceased Eliyahu, to recover the amount of her dowry from the estate of her late husband, Eliyahu.
Since, according to the provisions of Jewish religious laws, hearing a matrimonial case for the recovery of her dowry from her husband's estate does not necessitate the forfeiture of her right
of inheritance from her husband's estate. Furthermore, the aforementioned claimant Lulu stated voluntarily during the trial of this
lawsuit before this Religious Court that she has waived her right to the hereditary share from her husband's estate and has restricted
her right to receiving her dowry only, in accordance with the provisions of Jewish religious laws, and this statement was recorded in the court record.
And since it was stated in Article 79 of the Basic Law and Article 14 of the Jewish Community Law No.
77 of 1931 that the consideration of dowry lawsuits falls under the absolute jurisdiction of the Community Religious Court, which
necessitates that the ruling on the conditions of the wife's entitlement to the dowry is also within the jurisdiction of the Religious Court, and the ruling
on the forfeiture of her right to her hereditary share from her husband's estate when claiming her dowry from it is among the conditions of her entitlement
to the dowry. Furthermore, according to the two aforementioned articles, the jurisdiction of the Community Religious Court also extends to ruling
on all other personal status matters related to members of the communities upon the agreement of the litigants. As the aforementioned wife Lulu
agreed to restrict her right in her husband's estate to taking her dowry only and waived her right to her hereditary share
from the said estate in accordance with Jewish religious laws, and the aforementioned adversary agreed to that, this
court has ruled the forfeiture of the right of the aforementioned wife Lulu to her inheritance share from her husband's estate and restricted her right from the estate
to taking her dowry from it only. This court's aforementioned ruling was accompanied by the ratification of the Jurisdiction Determination Committee in
the Court of Cassation by its decision dated September 27, 1936 ⟦the initial⟧.
As for the fact that before the aforementioned wife Lulu filed a lawsuit against her husband's heirs to recover her dowry from her husband's
estate, a decree of distribution (Qassam) was issued by your respected court dated November 7, 1933, correcting the inheritance matter of the heirs
of the aforementioned deceased Eliyahu son of Baruch, on the basis that his aforementioned wife Lulu was among the number of heirs. According to the ruling
issued by this court regarding the forfeiture of her right to an inheritance share from the estate of her aforementioned husband, the clause of the mentioned Qassam
stating the inclusion of the aforementioned wife Lulu among the heirs and allocating a hereditary share to her from the estate of her aforementioned husband
has legally lapsed. Keeping the aforementioned Qassam as it is poses the risk of the aforementioned wife claiming
a hereditary share from her husband's estate while also receiving her dowry, and this is not permissible. Therefore, it is necessary to notify your
respected court to annul the aforementioned Qassam and issue another new Qassam that includes the correction of the inheritance matter of the heirs of the deceased
Eliyahu, on the basis of removing the aforementioned wife Lulu from the number of his heirs and correcting the inheritance matter for the heirs of
the deceased Eliyahu excluding the aforementioned wife, and to send to this court a copy of the new Qassam that
you will issue.
President ⟦...⟧
Deputy ⟦...⟧
⟦illegible signature⟧
President of the Religious Court
To the Religious Court
Page 6
257
20 Shawwal 1352 and 4 February 934
To the Honorable President of Legal Execution
Based on what was decided by the Israeli Religious Court in Baghdad on February 16, 5694 (A)
We hereby request the placement of a precautionary seizure on the estate of the deceased Eliyahu Baruch Yehuda Shoah in the amount of three thousand
Gold Ottoman Liras (provided that this amount is equivalent in Iraqi Dinars) as security for the rights
of his wife Lulu daughter of Ezra Isaac Saleh, documented in the marriage contract;
On behalf of
The President of the Israeli Community
⟦signature⟧
⟦stamp⟧
59
⟦stamp⟧
Raad Effendi
These are all the papers attached regarding the estate of ⟦Vajo Jikla⟧
⟦signature⟧
2/24/934
Page 7
25 82
27 Shawwal 1352 and 11 February 1934
His Excellency the President of the Sharia Execution in Baghdad, respected
Greetings and respect
Further to our letter No. 2570 dated 4 February 1934
I submit to you herewith the precautionary seizure decision with two certified copies of it, requesting the issuance
of the order for its execution and the notification of the third party ⟦Eastern Bank⟧ and the defendant Sion Baruch Yehuda
accordingly;
On his behalf
Head of the Community
Head of Execution
59
⟦illegible⟧
⟦illegible⟧
Copy
Page 11
2
The defendant, Sion, had been secured by the esteemed court by its decision dated 11 February 934
by placing a seizure on the estate, including an amount of (3152) Iraqi Dinars seized at the Eastern
Bank in Baghdad and an amount of (181) Dinars for the value of property seized in Khan al-Muradiya
al-Saghir according to the last Sharia letter numbered 2583 H and dated 28 / 2 / 934 to
the Presidency of the Community.
Upon adjusting the mentioned dowry amount in view of the necessity of adjusting the Lira price on the date
of maturity according to the ministerial response to you numbered A / 18 / 2 and dated 13 September 1934
and the verification of the Lira price at a rate of (18) Rupees and (14) Annas as stated in the letter of
the Eastern Bank in Baghdad dated 22 March 1935 in response to your letter to it numbered 825
and dated 17 March 1935, it clearly appears that it equals the amount of (56625) Rupees at a rate
of (75) Fils per Rupee, thus equaling the amount of (4246) Dinars and (875) Fils.
As for the remainder of this unsecured amount, it consists of (912) Dinars and (139) Fils,
this is if the value of the seized properties remains protected from a price drop.
As for the amounts that were requested and I request now also to be secured by seizure or by placing its equivalent
in cash in the court's fund, they are: -
912 / 139 | The remainder of the unsecured dowry amount
456 / - | The value of the alimony estimated by the esteemed court as alimony for the Sharia waiting period (
400 / - | My jewelry in the deceased's box which is under the disposal of the defendant Sion
| which the <del>right</del> oath was directed to him that it belongs to me and <del>was not</del> did not belong to the deceased
| that oath which I am ready to take. These pieces of jewelry are worth no less
| than (400) Dinars
224 / 780 | The value of the corrections which are a claim of mine against my late husband according to his ledger
| certified by the Baghdad Notary Public, currently in the custody of the defendant Sion
| just as this ⟦matter⟧ is proven by the testimony of Ibrahim Hilali -
| the clerk - and Salman Robin Daboura and Asher Farhana (among my husband's partners)
| As for the presentation by the defendant Sion's attorney of a ledger containing a current account in the name of
| (Lilo Aziz), it was nothing but ⟦fallacy⟧ first and misleading the esteemed court second.
1581 / 919 |
A period of more than a year and a half has passed on this simple case and the esteemed court
has not settled it, while it knows the reality of the facts that the defendant Sion is the one in possession
Page 12
- 3 -
on the estate and on the household furniture, carpets, and even on my jewelry which was placed in
the trunk of my late husband and which is under his control.
Allegations of gift and generosity to Ashir and his companions
When the dowry case had reached its conclusion, the defendant's attorney,
Salman Shina Effendi, made a claim with the intent of misleading the court to push it beyond
its jurisdiction and to deviate from Sharia rulings knowingly and by choice.
This claim is his allegation that I gifted my entitlement of the sum of (3000) dinars
to the partners of my late husband, who are (1) Ashir Farhana (2) Yehui Eliyahu Lewi
(3) Salman Daboura. That entitlement at the rate of a quarter is my inheritance entitlement
amounting to (800) Iraqi dinars and fractions, which he requested to be deducted from the dowry amount. In support
of this claim, he produced the agreement of November 5, 1933, concluded with these partners and heirs
all of them. Since the wording of this agreement does not support his claim, he also tried to produce the ledgers
of the deceased's partners for the purpose of procrastination and delay.
The legal points on this subject are:
1- The agreement of November 5, 1933, according to its requirements, does not contain either a gift or
generosity to the partners, but rather all that was stated in it is that these partners who had established
a limited partnership company registered in the Baghdad Court of First Instance under number (8) and dated April 24, 1932
under the name "Ashir Farhana, Yehui Eliyahu Lewi and Partners" had agreed with the heirs
to liquidate this estate and hand over its funds, claims, debts, and ledgers to the heirs provided
that they serve them in liquidating and disposing of the funds under the management of the established liquidator, the defendant
Sion, in exchange for a commission of (6) percent on the disposal, and both contracting parties acknowledged the existence of
losses in this company in which my late husband was a silent partner (commandite).
This agreement is signed by the defendant Sion himself and by the rest of the heirs under
the name of the First Party. Since this agreement was concluded according to Article (64) of
the Law of Procedure, looking into it and into the mentioned company's ledgers is outside the jurisdiction of the
sectarian court specified in paragraph (1) of Article (14) of the Jewish Community Law
by listing the subjects (1) Marriage (2) Divorce (3) Separation (4) Wife's alimony
(5) Validation of wills unless validated by the notary public, that period which explicitly excludes
other personal matters by saying:
"Except for matters belonging to the jurisdiction of the
competent civil courts for members of the community."
And the civil and personal matters that belong to the civil courts (civil and commercial matters
and personal matters such as inheritance, wills, and others) are according to Article (11) of
Page 13
4
Statement of the courts with the exception of the sectarian jurisdictions mentioned in Article (22) of the
Civil Courts Ordinance of 1918.
Among the civil and commercial matters is the issue of auditing the contract of November 5, 1933
concluded according to Article (64) of the Law of Procedure. Among the commercial matters is the auditing of
the limited partnership company, inspecting its books, and looking into its liquidation, which falls under the provisions of the commercial
laws. All these matters, in addition to the fact that they were not personal matters outside the
jurisdiction of paragraph (1) of the mentioned Article (14) and also outside the
exception related to other matters and personal status, rather they fall within the scope of the jurisdiction
of the civil courts according to Article (74) of the Basic Law.
2 - Paragraph (2) of Article (80) of the Basic Law states that:
"The inheritance and freedom of will shall also be determined by law,
"and other personal status matters
"which are not within the jurisdiction of the sectarian
"spiritual councils."
It is not hidden that this law intended by this constitutional paragraph has not been enacted until now.
Therefore, Article (23) of the Civil Courts Ordinance of 1918 is regarding inheritance
and wills by force of law ⟦now⟧ until the aforementioned intended law is enacted. The mentioned
constitutional paragraph and Article (23) of the mentioned ordinance, in terms of their content, prevent sectarian courts
from interfering in personal matters that are outside their jurisdiction and which fall within the jurisdiction
of the civil courts. How much more so are the sectarian courts prohibited from interfering
in civil and commercial matters (the contract and company books) which are covered by the ruling of
Article (74) of the Basic Law by making them within the jurisdiction of the civil courts.
The Sharia points for this topic are:
1 - The contract of November 5, 1935, was signed by my agent with the rest of the heirs under the name of
one party with a power of attorney not certified by the Religious Court, while this court does not consider
legally valid except for a power of attorney certified by it under religious ⟦orders⟧. On this basis, the
Religious Court is legally prohibited from auditing a paper with a power of attorney not certified by it.
2 - The action of the agent is not considered legally valid except when it brings benefit to the principal. If the
agent's action deprives the principal of rights, there is no legal weight to this action. Applying this Sharia rule,
the claim regarding the gift to Ashir and his colleagues must be rejected, given that the illegal agent
deprived his principal of rights according to the claim. This is in addition to the fact that the contract itself does not contain
a gift or generosity; its wording refutes the claim in this regard.
Page 15
6
dinars and (919) fils in the court treasury or seizing the estate's money for what corresponds to this amount
which is considered an obligation for him and his agent Salman Shina Effendi, the perpetrator of the legal crime in the court
hall, and this pertains to the refusal to achieve justice; and on this occasion, I have no choice but to draw
the court's attention to the Sharia rule which states:
"Judges, while in session, must maintain dignity
"out of reverence for God Almighty and constant fear of Him, imagining
"that His sword is drawn over necks and His hell is open
"under feet and that He is an overt avenger etc." and that they should judge
"with justice [etc]"
See Al-Maraje' page 8, M 8, Sec 4, and also Sec 10, B
"and page 152 L"
2 - Violation of Sharia rulings requiring the prioritization of widow's rights and making them urgent matters
and the speed of giving her her rights as required by Sharia rulings, and despite the appeals in prayer on the day
of the Fast of Atonement (Yom Kippur) by seeking mercy from the Creator, Glory be to Him, to forgive the sins of all orphans and widows -
delaying the case without resolution for a period exceeding a year and a half, and failing to provide the report regarding the crime of lawyer
Salman Shina Effendi and his commitment to his client, the defendant Zion Barikh, which leads to the refusal
to achieve justice.
3 - Deviating from legal provisions in terms of jurisdiction and violating Sharia rulings as detailed
in the title "The Alleged Gift Case is Outside the Court's Jurisdiction" regarding the attempt to request
a reduction of the amount of (450) dinars from the dowry amount, which is considered an obligation for lawyer Salman Shina Effendi
who is trying to cover up his crime and secure the interest of the defendant Zion, which leads to injustice and refusal
to achieve justice.
4 - The members of the honorable court openly stated regarding the delay of the dowry case for another two years
to satisfy the wishes of the defendant Zion Barikh and his agent Salman Shina Effendi, the perpetrator of
the legal crime in the court hall, which draws attention on one hand, and on the other hand
the alliance agreement between the sectarian judicial men and the head of the sect regarding collusion over the judiciary
in conducting deceptive matters according to the desires of the influential people who continue their meetings in this regard, which
necessitates astonishment; and this is, of course, without constant fear of God or imagining that His sword is drawn over
necks and His hell is open under feet and that He is an overt avenger as stated in the Sharia rule mentioned
above.
It is not hidden from the honorable court that despair has occurred among the litigants as a result of that, and the belief
has been formed from that there is no benefit in reconsidering the decisions according to paragraph (3) of Article
(14) of the Sect Law, and there is also no benefit in the condition stipulated in the phrase
Page 18
Iraqi Government
Ministry of Justice
Please refer to the general number
Department: Legal Drafting Bureau
General Number: 1268/25/A
Private Number:
Telegraphic Address: Adliya
Date: 15 / September / 1935
17 / Jumada al-Akhirah / 1354
Subject Summary: The estate case of the deceased Eliyahu Barukh.
The Head of the Jewish Community in Baghdad
With reference to the notice given by Lulu daughter of Ezra Ishaq Salih, wife of
the deceased Eliyahu Barukh, to the Head of the Jewish Religious Court in Baghdad, dated
August 29, 1935, a copy of which was sent to you.
We request that you provide us with the necessary clarifications regarding what was stated in the aforementioned
notice.
⟦signature⟧
Acting Minister of Justice
⟦illegible⟧
ASH / 14
⟦illegible red smudge⟧
Page 19
⟦illegible⟧
⟦illegible⟧
⟦illegible⟧
⟦illegible⟧
2274
17 September 935
His Eminence the President of the Jewish Religious Court in Baghdad, the respected
Enclosed you will find a copy of the Ministry of Justice letter No. 1268/25/1 dated 35/9/15
to respond to its contents;
⟦illegible⟧
⟦On behalf of⟧
Head of the Community
Page 20
Ministry of Justice
Legal Codification Bureau Division
Number - 9 / 25 / 1268
Date - 15 / September 1935
17 Jumada al-Akhira 1354
Subject Summary - The estate case of the deceased Eliyahu Baruch
Head of the Jewish Community in Baghdad
With reference to the notice given by Lulu daughter of Ezra Ishaq Saleh, wife of the deceased
Eliyahu Baruch, to the Head of the Jewish Religious Court in Baghdad, dated August 29, 935
of which a copy was sent to you -
We request that you provide us with the necessary clarifications regarding what was stated in the aforementioned notice;
Undersecretary of the Ministry of Justice
Enclosed is the original 17 / 9 / 35
⟦illegible⟧
Page 21
The Rabbinical Court of Justice
Baghdad, May God Protect Her
The Israeli Religious Court in Baghdad
JEWISH RELIGIOUS COURT
BAGHDAD
No: 825
Year: 5695
Date: 24 Adar II, 5695
With God's Help
Based on our judgment from the 6th of Tammuz
and Thursday, 16th of Shevat 5695 in Baghdad
In the presence of ⟦signed below⟧
Yitzhak son of Abraham ⟦Sassoon⟧ and Mrs. ⟦Aziza⟧
daughter of ⟦Rachel⟧ widow of David ⟦Ezra⟧ Sassoon of blessed memory appeared before us and claimed as follows: Given that the deceased Mr.
David ⟦Ezra⟧ Sassoon aforementioned died and left behind debts to the company ⟦A. Sassoon⟧ and partners
and until now all the claims against him from the aforementioned company have not been clarified (and according to their account approximately 6
thousand Pounds) and also the personal property of the deceased is in the possession of the aforementioned company and also the house of the deceased in...
was sold and until now the full amount due after redeeming the house from the debt on it has not been clarified by the buyer
all these have ⟦not⟧ been clarified except perhaps after a long time etc.
Ezra Sassoon
Witness signatures
Page 22
2287
24 September 935
25/
Ministry of Justice
Reference to your letter No. 1268/25/1 dated 15 September 935
The lawsuit formed between Lulu daughter of Ezra Ishaq Saleh and Zion Baruch Yehuda
is a lawsuit claiming a marriage contract amount for the plaintiff which is owed to her by her deceased husband
Eliyahu Baruch, and the court ruled for the plaintiff in her claim on the condition that there be deducted from it
(according to the requirements of Israeli law) everything the wife received from the husband during his lifetime
and what she receives after him from the estate. It remains for the wife to attend the court to verify
this matter in order to rule for her for the remaining amount in addition to the estate;
Head of the Community
To the respected Head of the Israeli Community to send a copy of the minutes
with the required answer about which school ⟦Ramua⟧ entered, and our matter is urgent
Page 25
Editing
A/264/25
19 Ramadan 1354
14 December 1935
Legal distribution of Lulu daughter of Ezra Isaac Saleh related
to the estate of the deceased Eliyahu Baruch.
Head of the Jewish Community
Baghdad
Please inform us of the stage reached by the aforementioned legal distribution with
the reasons for the delay in its resolution.
A
⟦illegible⟧
On behalf of the Undersecretary of the Ministry of Justice
Head of the Jewish Community
Baghdad
Special number 2717
Date 20 / 12 / 35
A 491