Aviya Doron

Medieval credit transactions operated in a landscape of uncertainty, where the presence or absence of written documentation did not guarantee financial security. While written debt instruments provided a formal record of obligations, lenders and borrowers navigated risk not only through documents but also through oral agreements, court acknowledgments, and physical collateral. This article examines the conditions under which creditors in fourteenth-century German towns opted for written documentation over alternative forms of collateral and the underlying factors influencing this choice. Rather than serving as static proof, written debt instruments could be undermined by shifting obligations, partial repayments, or contested claims. By tracing how creditors wielded physical documents in court and used them as instruments of negotiation, this article highlights the dual function of written collateral as both legal proof and material leverage, revealing how individual moneylenders navigated credit relationships and made strategic choices to manage risk within the shifting dynamics of medieval urban economies.

Many Jewish-Christian credit transactions relied on pawns as collateral, which presumably eliminated the risk in the case of debtors’ default. However, keeping and maintaining certain pawns involved particular risks that further complicated these transactions. This paper focuses on live pawns, specifically horses, where the safekeeping of the animal involved far greater difficulties and risks than with other valuable objects that were pawned with Jews. By tracing how legal norms and practices addressed some of the unique risks attached to receiving horses as pawns, this article will outline the expectations both Jews and Christians had when engaging in credit transaction secured by horses. Relying on responsa literature, urban legislation, and court cases from the late thirteenth to mid-fourteenth centuries, this analysis will discuss some of the complications relating to liability over live pawns, with the goal of demonstrating how a specific type of pawn, and its unique risks and benefits, reflects previous assumptions and expectations regarding risk and trust.