Responsum: On the Right of Residence

We have perused the letters in part, and we give praise and thanks to the One who gives from His wisdom to those who fear Him. For He has granted them Torah, wisdom, knowledge, and understanding, and they study the Torah and are precise in its minutiae. [ . . . ]

And we were very puzzled by your comments, that you wanted us to get involved in a dispute between two great pillars, and regarding a matter that we do not practice [i.e., ḥerem ha-yishuv]—it is a custom concerning which we have no expertise. Furthermore, you did not write to us the formula of the original enactment, in the manner that you have it inscribed. Even if it is not written down, you should have taken counsel with the city elders, and even the litigants themselves, and written it with their consent and had them sign it. Perhaps when we read it, we will understand the matter and know the right ruling in this case, and then we can provide the messengers with the correct response. [ . . . ]

I, “Reuben,” am hereby complaining about “Simeon,” as he is infringing upon my trade, and I am suing him in accordance with the decree, as he should leave the city and not infringe upon my trade. He should not remain in the city, in the inheritance that I received from my ancestors, in compliance with the decree imposed by the community, that no man should remain in the city apart from those residing in the city at that time, and their offspring—males, not females—who are born to them from that time. Now I am from the city, whereas you are from a different city, and I do not want you earning your livelihood in the city anymore. Rather, leave the city, for up to now you have been permitted, with my consent, regarding the communal decree, as I lent you my inheritance and my portion, but I no longer want you to be in the city, and you should not be allowed to stay any longer.

Regarding Reuben’s statement that the originators [of the decree] relied upon the law that “a resident of one town can prevent a resident of another town [from establishing a similar business in his place of residence]” [b. Bava Batra 21b], Simeon found a rationale and did not answer the complaint itself but rather responded to the proof. Thus, they went from one matter to another, and the strife expanded like the letting out of water [see Proverbs 17:14]. They also moved on from one legal issue to another, until they stated that the court had declared people’s property ownerless, and their declaration that property is ownerless is valid. [ . . . ]

In any event, we see that Simeon admits to the existence of the decree, as he wrote: “They decreed that a person may not remain in the city, or within fifteen parasangs of the surrounding area, without their permission or that of their descendants.” Even though Reuben did not specify that the originators rendered their decree dependent upon their permission and the permission of their descendants, as Simeon wrote, it stands to reason that this was indeed the case, as it is their practice to grant permission from time to time. Since they gave Simeon permission to remain until such-and-such a date, everyone agrees that throughout this period he was fully within his rights to remain. If the elders, when granting permission, simply said to him, “You are permitted to remain in the city until such-and-such a date,” and did not specify that “from then onward you are forbidden,” we maintain that the period from that date onward [was included in the permission].

Even if they said the following to him when they granted him permission, “From then onward, you are under the auspices of the court,” if that date was more than twelve months later, and he had acquired a place of residence in the city, and he does not intend to return to his city of origin, it appears to us that he should be considered like a resident of the city in all regards, and he is permitted to remain there. [ . . . ]

Solomon ben R. Abraham

Abraham, known as Ezraḥ, ben R. Mattithiah

Menaḥem ben R. Judah