Talmudic Law

The great similarity between the Jewish and Islamic legal systems in criminal policy, the quality of executions, and the functioning of the Jewish and Islamic Jurisprudence have led some to believe that Islamic law has adopted Jewish law in the death penalty.
Comparative studies in these two religions show In general, Islam endorses Judaism in many execution laws, and in many other executions, such as animal executions, rude juvenile executions, and non-Jewish executions, it is completely against the Jewish law.
In fact, Islamic law does not merely establish a system independent of Jewish law but merely reform it. These Islamic reforms to Jewish law are often in the details, and have usually lowered the penalties.

The present book studies the foundations and criminal purposes of the Jewish and Islamic law for the death penalty, by using the Torah and the Talmud, and Islamic sources, including the Qur'an and Jawaher al-Kalam.
* Language: Persian

עיון מקיף במשנת 'משל משלו חכמים באשה' (נדה ב, ה), ובמשנת 'כל הנשים מיטמאות בבית החיצון' (שם ה, א). החיבור מציע למשניות אלו ולתלמודיהן פירוש אנטומי, לשוני ועיוני.
זהו החיבור המלא במהדורה חדשה ומתוקנת שבה חידושים רבים, כמפורט בהקדמה. כולל גם את המאמר המקוצר 'משנת הבנין ומשנת הבית החיצון', במהדורה מתוקנת.

[מהדורה מתוקנת של מאמר זה נמצאת בראש הספר בניינה של אשה] עיון במשנת 'משל משלו חכמים באשה' (נדה ב, ה), ובמשנת 'כל הנשים מיטמאות בבית החיצון' (שם ה, א). המאמר מציע למשניות אלו ולתלמודיהן פירוש אנטומי, לשוני ועיוני. כמו כן נדונו בקצרה כל הפירושים הקודמים וקשייהם.
נ.ב. האיורים מופיעים באתר אקדמיה בצורה משובשת. מומלץ להוריד את הקובץ.

TALMUD ve HADÎS Sözlü Rivâyet Teknikleri Özelinde Karşılaştırmalı Bir Araştırma, XXXVI+ 802=838 pages.

Karşınızdaki bu çalışma, Hadis Külliyatı’nın Talmud Literatürü ile uygun karşılaştırmalı çalışmalar yapılabileceği, yeni yöntemlerle diğer bilim dallarının (Mitoloji, Arkeoloji, Antropoloji, Astronomi, Tıp, Dilbilim, Narratoloji, Hermenötik vd.) verilerinin bu çalışmalarda kullanılabileceği hatta kullanılması gerektiği savını ortaya atmaktadır. Çalışma, ayrıca rivâyetlerin Tannalarca ikil isnadla aktarılmasının, râvî tabakalarının Hz. Musa’ya kadar dayandırılmasının, Hadiste rivâyetin râvi zincirinin sırf sahih senedlere sahip olmasının, otorite yazarların kanonikleştirilmiş kitaplarında ve tartışmalarında yer almasının, belli bir ulema sınıfının (sözgelimi Ferisi, Sadukî, Esseni, Elkesai, Nasıralı, Markioncu, Aryusçu, Ebionitler, Ehl-i Sünnet, Şia, Mutezile) bu ikincil kaynaklara dair yorumlarının bilimsel yöntemlerle karşılıklı ve karşılaştırılmalı olarak yeniden ele alınmasını önermektedir. Yahudilik ve Hıristiyanlık Araştırmalarının ana kaynaklarıyla, İslam Araştırmaları ve temel kaynakları ile birlikte değerlendirilmesi veya İslam Araştırmaları’nın temel birincil kaynakları ile Yahudilik ve Hıristiyanlık Araştırmaları ve asıl kaynaklarının karşılaştırmalı ele alınması ve bunların insan ve sosyal bilimlerinin verilerinden destek alınarak yorumlanmasının yararlı yeni bir Teo-histo-sosyo-linguistik bir bakış açısını ve anlam(ay)ı tetikleyeceği ve mevcut dogmatik bakışla gelişen tıkanıklıkları gidereceği açıktır. İbranî gelenek ile İslamî geleneğin “isnâd”a dair uygulamalarının üstünlük, öncelik, yeganelikleri üzerine yapılan tartışmaların ve serd edilen mülahazaların neredeyse tamamının ilk el İbranî kaynaklara dayalı olarak yapılmadığı, hatta Müslüman muhaddislerce “İsnadın İslam ümmetine has bir müessese” olduğu şeklindeki anlayışın gereğinden fazla abartılmış bir ibâre olduğunu, ‘İsnad’ın süreçsel gelişimi ve profesyonel hal almasına vurgu yapılmadığı kaynaklarda göze çarpan önemli bir husustur. Halbuki “İsnad” uygulamasının Antik Yunan’da, Çin’de, Hint’te, İran’da, Andenlerde vd. binlerce yıldan beri kadim milletlerin “geleneklerini, tarihlerini ve toplumsal bellekleri”ni taşıdıkları bir “müessese” olduğu ve bunun insanlığın bir “ortak” buluşu belki de belleğin gereği olduğu gözardı edilmiş gözükmektedir.
Semitik din bilginleri sınıfı ( a=Rabbinik Hahamlar, b=Havariler-Pavlus-Kilise Babaları, c= Sahâbe, ᵓEimme-Ulemâ, Ehl-i Sünnet), aMiqrâ-bSᵊbarto-cQur’ân üçlüsünün yanına belki de karşısına herbirinin (a) ikili-ikincisi-ikizi-tekrarlaması olacak bir Sözlü Miqra ‘Torah şe-be-ᶜalpeh’/Mişna’yı, (b) sadece kendisi Müjde olan İsa’ya sözlü dolaşık rivayetlerden müteşekkil İncilleri Kilise’nin keyfi kabulü ile izafe etmek ve ondan sonra İsa ile hiç karşılaşmayan Pavlus’un mektuplarını, ‘Yeni Ahid Külliyatı’nı ve ardından Kilise Babaları’nın oluşturduğu kanonlarını, (c) Qur’ân’ı ‘vahy-i metlûvv’,  Sünnet’i ise ‘vahy-i gayri metlûvv’ olarak görüp, ikincil bir kaynak olarak yazıyla kayıt altına alarak ihdâs edilen Hadis literatürünü oluşturmuşlardır. Oluşturulan bu külliyat (aMişna-Talmud, bYeni Ahid Külliyatı, cHadis Mecmuaları) ve etraflarında oluşan otorite yorum(lama)lar, aMiqrâ-bSᵊbarto-cQur’ân üçlüsünü gölgede bırakmışlardır. Bu yönüyle elinizdeki yapıt bilim dünyasında her iki geleneğin ana kaynaklarını orijinal dilleriyle inceleyerek Talmud ve Hadis literatürünü karşılaştırmalı ve kapsamlı bir şekilde ele alan ilk ve tek çalışmadır.

The present study explores the origins of Jewish ritual immersion – inquiring when immersion first appeared as a rite of purification and what the reasons may have been for this development specifically at this time. Textual and archaeological evidence suggest that immersion emerged at some point during – or perhaps slightly prior to – the first half of the first century B.C.E. It is suggested here that the practice grew out of contemporary bathing practices involving the Hellenistic hip bath. Through a process of ritualization, full-body immersion emerged as a method of purificatory washing clearly differentiated from profane bathing. By way of a subsequent process of 'hyper-ritualization', some ventured further to distinguish purificatory ablutions from profane bathing by restricting use of 'drawn water' for purification and by assigning impurity to anyone who bathed in such water. Before us is an enlightening example of one of the many ways wherein Jewish religious practices evolved and adapted in response to Hellenistic cultural innovations.

Abstract. Tractate Suk. 52a/b features the earliest known references by name to Messiah ben Joseph, a figure who appears throughout rabbinic literature. An examination of these talmudic references suggest that this figure was established in all essentials in Temple times.

In this article it is argued that the Qiblah passages in the Qur’an, which are commonly understood as referring to the direction of the prayer, are directly engaging with and interpreting the Shema passages in Deuteronomy and their Talmudic commentaries. By defining and applying the method of intertextual polysemy, nine points of intertextuality are identified between the various Qur’anic, Biblical, and Talmudic passages. Against this background, the article implies that narrations from traditional Qur’anic commentaries are lacking in their interpretation of these passages, since they do not employ any extra-Quranic contexts to explain their meaning. Through the method of intertextual polysemy, the alternative thesis propounded here is that the historical reference for the Qiblah passages is the Shema.

This study deals essentially with the knowledge of the Palestinian Rabbis concerning paganism in the days of Mishna and Talmud. The Late Professor Saul Lieberman wrote that “Many isolated items on idolatry and idol worshippers are scattered all over rabbinic literature. It would require a large volume to treat this topic”. This valuable and exhaustive study proves methodically that the Rabbis had deeper knowledge about Syrian, Arabian, Anatolian and Graeco-Roman Pagan cults than is commonly believed. Clear, accessible and displaying considerable scholarship this work will undoubtedly provide an important challenge to both historians, archaeologists, and scholars of Rabbinic texts.

Three caves were discovered by the first archaeological expedition to Naḥal Ṣeʾelim in 1960 under the direction of Yohanan Aharoni: Cave 31 (“The Cave of the Arrows”), Cave 32 (“The Cave of the Skulls”) and Cave 34 (“The Cave of the Scrolls”). This article presents a tefillin case from Cave 34, a find which was never published or even mentioned in preliminary reports on the results of the expedition. The miniscule case is made of leather; it is almost square in shape (16×17 mm) and is divided into four compartments. No inscribed tefillin slips were found inside. Two tefillin slips which were discovered separately in the cave have been published in the past, however it is impossible to know for sure if these originated in the case under discussion. Although Aharoni identified the Bar Kokhba revolt as the main period of activity in the three adjacent Naḥal Ṣeʾelim caves, it is possible that the tefillin case might have been brought to Cave 34 earlier—perhaps during the course of the Great Revolt. The structure and size of the tefillin case are quite similar to those of tefillin cases with four compartments found elsewhere in the Judean Desert, most of which date to the late Second Temple period. It should come as no surprise that our tefillin case matches certain details found in the rabbinic prescriptions considering the fact that the rabbis were certainly aware of the way contemporary Jews practiced the tefillin ritual, and it is against this backdrop of common practice that the comments of the rabbis should be read and understood. Recognizing that the rabbis were likely reacting to existing practices rather than acting as primary promulgators of halakhic praxis, there is little reason to label the tefillin case from Naḥal Ṣeʾelim as in some way or other “rabbinic”.

Rava, the prominent fourth-generation Amora, instituted a significant development to the theory of tort law in the Bavli. Prior rulings from earlier generations of Amoraim consistently apply the principle of strict liability to tortfeasors, wherein intention plays little or no role in determining guilt.  Remarkably, Rava innovated a requirement of intention in order to render liability for both civil and ritual violations. He also carved a distinction between damages caused through negligence and those resulting from intent, and assigned corresponding degrees of liability. Within the realm of ritual law, he exempted those transgressions which result not from any malicious intent, but from mere physical desire. At the same time, he was among the first to maintain that intention is not necessary in order to fulfill one’s religious obligation.
A close analogue to Rava’s system can be found in Aristotle’s discussion of corrective justice in the fifth chapter of his Nicomachean Ethics. For Aristotle, legal and moral culpability necessitate intent. Consequently, Aristotle exempted from liability not only damages incurred accidentally, but also torts committed out of passion. Given the similarity between Rava’s and Aristotle’s respective approaches, and given the intellectual and philosophical atmosphere prevailing over Rava and his circle, there is much to be discovered concerning the moral concepts underlying Rava’s legal thought.

In Intention in Talmudic Law: Between Thought and Deed, Shana Strauch Schick offers the first comprehensive history of intention in classical Jewish law (1st-6th centuries CE). Through close readings of rabbinic texts and explorations of contemporaneous legal religious traditions, Strauch Schick constructs an intellectual history that reveals remarkable consistency within the rulings of particular sages, locales, and schools of thought. The book carefully traces developments across generations and among groups of rabbis, uncovering competing lineages of evolving legal and religious thought, and demonstrating how intention gradually became a nuanced, differentially applied concept across a wide array of legal realms. Readership This book would be of interest to academics in the fields of Talmud, Jewish law and thought, and to laypeople interested in Talmud study and the development of rabbinic law.

אדם נמצא אחראי לגרימת חבלה בגופו של זולתו, כגון שגרם לקטיעת ידו או רגלו. כיצד יש להעריך את שיעור הפיצוי שישולם לנחבל?  כיצד אומדים במונחים כספיים את שוויו של אחד מאיברי גוף האדם?
שאלה זו אינה עניין טכני הנתון להכרעה בידי שמאים. היא מעוררת שאלות ערכיות ופותחת פתח לקשת רחבה של אפשרויות אשר ההבדלים ביניהן מהותיים.
מאמר זה מוקדש לעיון בכללים שנקבעו במשנה בפרק השמיני של מסכת בבא קמא (פרק "החובל") בעניין שומת נזקי גוף. כללים אלה ייבחנו באופן השוואתי אל מול הכללים שהיו מקובלים במשפט הרומי בן התקופה ואל מול הכללים המודרניים המקובלים בשיטות משפט בנות-זמננו, עם דגש על המשפט הישראלי.
כפי שניווכח, חכמי המשנה מציגים מודל השונה במהותו הן מן המודל הרומי הקלאסי הן מן המודל המשפטי המודרני. עיונים השוואתיים אלה יאפשרו לנו לעמוד על החידושים שקבעו חכמי המשנה בעניין שומת נזקי גוף ועל המשמעויות הנובעות מהם לגבי התפיסה של טבע האדם ומקומו בחברה.

Le phénomène religieux invite le juriste à sortir des sentiers battus. En effet, les religions font naître une forme particulière de droit international : le droit transnational religieux (I), qui irrigue lui-même les droits nationaux comme le droit international public (II). Partant, ce sont tant la théorie des sources du droit que celle des rapports de systèmes qui doivent assimiler ces phénomènes juridiques.

Judaism has often been described historically as a religious framework centered upon practice, with ritual obligations and prohibitions dictating almost every aspect of daily life. The observance of Jewish ritual practices played a central role in the day-to-day lives of Jews throughout extended periods of Jewish History, and indeed serves as a hallmark of Judaism as we know it today. But when and how did this practice-centered Judaism first emerge and develop?
 
Beginning with the 19th century Wissenschaft des Judentums movement, scholarship has made great strides in investigating  how various aspects of Jewish practice originated and developed over time. Unfortunately, this vitally important field of inquiry has focused its efforts almost exclusively on the evidence provided by written sources—mostly late Second Temple period Jewish literature and early rabbinic texts. Material evidence provided by archaeology was unavailable to the earlier researchers, and mostly overlooked by later ones.

Recognizing that archaeology is actually indispensable for a comprehensive understanding of the genesis and early development of Judaism, The Origins of Judaism Archaeological Project seeks to recruit data from archaeology in tandem with textual evidence with the goal of studying how ancient Judaism originated and subsequently developed over time. Archaeology and texts tend to provide very different kinds of information, and if brought together prudently, hold the potential to afford a much more comprehensive and accurate understanding of the genesis of Judaism and the ways it was observed in the ancient past.

Among the most salient topics analyzed under the aegis of The Origins of Judaism Archaeological Project are stepped immersion pools (“mikva’ot ”), chalkstone vessels, ancient tefillin (phylacteries) from the Judean Desert, and archaeozoological evidence of kashrut (dietary law) observance.

The Origins of Judaism Archaeological Project is currently engaged in archaeological fieldwork through the 'Einot Amitai Archeological Project, and has already produced a series of articles on ancient Jewish ritual practices, their origins and their early development. Components of the project have been supported by two generous grants from the Israel Science Foundation (ISF), and by a grant from the Biblical Archaeology Society (BAS). 

For more information, please go to the Institute of Archaeology website for a description of the project: http://archaeology.afau.org/projects/the-origins-of-halakhic-judaism-project/
or contact the project director: Dr. Yonatan Adler: [email protected]

The present study presents and discusses the tefillin (phylactery) remains found in Cave 34 at Naḥal Ṣeʾelim within the framework of Yohanan Aharoni’s first 1960 expedition to the Judean Desert. Presented here are a leather tefillin case, never before reported upon, and two inscribed tefillin slips (34ṢePhyl A and 34ṢePhyl B) which have until now received only preliminary treatment. Very few close parallels to the Naḥal Ṣeʾelim tefillin slips are known from elsewhere in the Judean Desert. Both the tefillin slips and the case appear quite compatible with rabbinic descriptions and prescriptions, although there is little reason to label these ritual objects as in some way or another “rabbinic”. The paleographic analysis of the tefillin slips (presented here by Ada Yardeni) suggests that the texts were penned sometime in the second half of the first century CE. While a Bar Kokhba period date for the deposit of the tefillin remains in Cave 34 does not appear at all unlikely, an earlier dating –possibly First Revolt period– must not be precluded.

This article traces the path from the Mishnaic position requiring intention in the performance of individual rituals to its antithesis in the late anonymous strata of the Babylonian Talmud, which categorically rejects the necessity of intention. It describes how mitzvot ein zerihot kavvanah is introduced by the redactors to explain the underlying rational behind a particular ruling of Rava, then assumes its own independent status. In its final form, it is invoked as a legal principle to clarify disputes having no direct relevance to the issue of intention. The latter half of the article seeks to understand Rava’s position with regard to ritual, and offers an analysis of his rulings within the framework of Zoroastrian and Christian texts, as well as ritual theory, in order to shed light on Rava’s view concerning the need for intention in ritual fulfillment vs. religious/tort violations.

Hebrew followed by English.
העריכה הספרותית של המשנה מסקרנת, מסתורית ומאתגרת. חילופי הנוסח שלה סבוכים לא פחות. חילופי מסורות וחילופי לשונות, טעויות סופר אל מול מסורות הלכתיות, ארץ ישראליות ובבליות, מרתקות את מחשבתנו. ברם, עד כמה מושפעים התהליכים הטקסטואליים מעמדות מוצא הלכתיות-משפטיות?
המאמר מבקש להצביע על הקשר ההדוק, הדו כיווני, בין המבנה הספרותי של משנת בבא קמא ונוסחותיה לבין התפיסות המשפטיות העומדות בבסיסה. המאמר מתמקד בחטיבת נזקי ממון שבששת פרקיה הראשונים של מסכת בבא קמא, כמו גם בציר מרכזי בתוכה: משניות בור שבפרק החמישי של המסכת, בוחן את מקורותיה התנאיים של המשנה ומנתח את מלאכת העריכה הספרותית שלה. ניתוחנו מראה כי ישנו חוט מקשר בין התפיסות המושגיות הנוגעות להגדרת אבות הנזיקין לבין העריכה המורכבת של ששת פרקיה הראשונים של מסכת בבא קמא. בד בבד, המתח בין תפיסות אלו, כמו גם חוסר ההכרעה של עורך המשנה ביניהן, הוביל לפיצולן של מסורות הנוסח של משנת בור בפרק החמישי למסורת בבלית וארץ ישראלית, שהותירו את רישומן בעדי הנוסח שבידינו.
המאמר מצביע על בתי המדרש של ר' ישמעאל ור' עקיבא כמקורן האפשרי של המסורות התנאיות, המשולבות בחטיבת נזקי ממון של משנת בבא קמא. בהמשך להן, מצויות עקבותיהן של תפיסות אלו בין האמוראים – רב ושמואל – שנחלקו בהמשגת הקטגוריות הנזיקיות שבמשנה (ארבעה אבות נזיקין): אם תוך הדגשת מאפייניהם המשפטיים (הקו המנחה בהגדרת אבות הנזיקין ובהצדקת החיוב בתשלום הנזק, לפי שיטת רב) ואם תוך מתן משקל למאפייניהם הריאליים (הקו המנחה לפי עמדת שמואל). כפי שנטען, מתח זה הוא גם המניע לפיצול מסורות הנוסח של משנת בור בפרק החמישי של המסכת למסורת בבלית וארץ ישראלית, אך נבקש לשער, כי פיצול זה הוא אף קדום למסורות האמוראיות, ומשקף חוסר הכרעה של עורך המשנה במתח המשפטי הבסיסי הנדון.
כללו של דבר, המאמר טוען כי ניתוח מקורותיה, תולדותיה ומסורותיה של חטיבת נזקי ממון במשנת בבא קמא אינו אך ורק עיסוק חיצוני בטקסט ובתולדותיו. יש להיבטים אלו קשר הדוק לתפיסות הנזיקיות של התנאים והאמוראים, העומדות בבסיסה של המשנה, והן משתקפות בעריכתה, בעיצובה הספרותי ובחילופי הנוסח והלשון שלה ומשפיעות עליהם. ובמילים אחרות: העיון במשנת בבא קמא מלמד על אחדות – אחדות של תוכן וצורה.

This article seeks to uncover the intimate and bidirectional connections between the literary structure of Mishnah Bava Kamma and the versions and legal conceptions on which it is based. It focuses on the monetary damages unit in the first six chapters of the tractate, in general, and, specifically, on one of the unit's central axes: the “Pit” mishnayot in chapter five. The article examines the sources of the Mishnah in the earlier tannaitic literature, and analyzes its literary redaction. My analysis demonstrates the presence of the thread that runs between the legal assumptions that pertain to the definition of the archetypes of damage (arba’ah avot nezikin) and the redaction of the first six chapters of the tractate.  At the same time, I show that the tension between these conceptions, along with the redactor's impartiality, led to the splitting of the textual traditions of the “Pit” mishnayot in the fifth chapter into Babylonian and Land of Israel traditions, leaving their mark on the extant textual witnesses.
This article details the disputatious approaches of the schools of R. Ishmael and R. Akiva as the possible source of tannaitic traditions incorporated in the monetary damages unit of the tractate. Traces of these conceptions are also found in the disagreement between the Amoraim Rav and Samuel on the categories of damages in the Mishnah. I argue that this tension is the driving force behind the textual variations in those “Pit” mishnayot between the Babylonian and Palestinian traditions. The division, I argue, preceded the amoraic traditions, and reflects the lack of decision on the part of the redactor of the Mishnah.

Much of Mishnah Tractate Sotah consists of digressions from the titular topic. Going beyond the standard explanation of pre-existing collections included by the redactor for mnemotechnical reasons, this article will demonstrate the literary associations which connect the digressions to the main body of the tractate, suggesting deeper conceptual inks which we will seek to discover.

How are we to distinguish between law and violence? On what grounds is the former legitimized while the latter is condemned? This modern question sheds light on the essential concepts of law and order and their social value. My task in this paper is to trace the roots of this question in the Jewish jurisprudential tradition by focusing on a unique norm, established sometime during the 5th to the 6th century, in which violence become a legitimized norm when a case could not be determined by means of official legal procedure. This survey shows that while ancient sources legitimized this norm of extra-legal violence, medieval thinkers redefined it and neutralized it, reduced it to an economic procedure or even explicated interesting stances regarding the honor and stability of legal institutions.

This article aims to show that there is a strong halakhic basis to allow a childless couple to postpone procreation temporarily and without an arbitrary time limit imposed. It focuses on the rulings of Rivash and Rema, who recommend that the rabbinic leadership adopt a laissez faire policy regarding marital issues The Talmudic teaching extolling zealousness is not absolute and would not apply if a delay would enhance the performance of the commandment. The fear of a premature death is not a factor with regard to the commandment to procreate.

רבים תוהים מדוע המשנה במסכת שבת מקדימה למשנה המרכזית של 39 מלאכות (פ"ז מ"ב) את ששת הפרקים הראשונים, העוסקים בחלקם בהכנות לקראת שבת ובחלקם בענייני הוצאה. במאמר זה נבחן הסברים שונים שהוצעו לסדר הפרקים כאן, ונתמקד בפתיחה 'במה' המופיעה בארבעה מתוך ששת הפרקים. פרקי 'במה' מתחלקים לשניים העוסקים בהכנות לקראת שבת ושניים העוסקים במלאכת הוצאה, והפתיחה המשותפת רומזת שעורך המשנה מבקש לקשור בין שני הנושאים האלו. ננסה לעמוד על משמעות הקשר בין שני הנושאים הללו, ונציע כי ביחד שני הנושאים מבטאים את ייחודה של השבת ומבליטים את ההבדלים העיקריים בין השבת לבין מועדים מקודשים אחרים.

French Abstract: Pour la plupart des juristes, le droit talmudique est une terra incognita. Pourtant, le patrimoine juridique juif est d’une richesse et d’une pérennité sans équivalent dans l’Histoire. Constitué sur un fonds plurimillénaire, il n’a jamais cessé de se développer dans les circonstances et les pays les plus différents, montrant une immense capacité à s’adapter aux situations économiques et sociales les plus diverses. L’ouvrage se concentre sur les questions cardinales : qu’entend-on par droit talmudique ? Quelles sont les sources et les autorités du système ? Quelles sont les règles d’interprétation du texte biblique mises en place par les Sages du Talmud et leurs successeurs ? Quelle est la physionomie d’une Justice dénuée de pouvoir judiciaire et d’agents d’exécution ? Pour répondre à ces questions, l’auteur a puisé dans la littérature rabbinique traditionnelle comme dans la recherche universitaire la plus récente. L’ouvrage, sans équivalent en langue française, s’adresse au juriste comme au non-juriste.

English Abstract: For most lawyers, Talmudic law is terra incognita. Yet the Jewish legal heritage shows a richness and durability unmatched in history. Based on a millenium fund, it has never stopped growing in the circumstances and the most different countries, showing a great ability to adapt to the most diverse social and economic situations. The book focuses on the cardinal questions: what is meant by Talmudic law? What are the sources and authorities of the system? What are the rules of interpretation of the biblical text established by the Sages of the Talmud and their successors? What is the physiognomy of a Justice devoid of judiciary and enforcement agents? To answer these questions, the author has drawn on traditional rabbinic literature and in the latest academic research. The book, with no equivalent in French, addresses the jurist as the layman.

עולם המשפט משתמש תדיר בחזקות, ועניינן נדון בספרות התאורטית מזוויות שונות. במאמר זה אבקש להראות כיצד השימוש בחזקה עשוי לסייע לכינונו של ריבוד נורמטיבי, כלומר ליצירתו של עולם נורמטיבי שבו משמשות בד בבד הכרעות נורמטיביות שונות. החזקה המשפטית מתמקדת בשאלה העובדתית (מה אירע), אולם קביעתה עשויה להתבסס על שיקולים נורמטיביים. כפל הפנים הזה מאפשר לחזקה להשמיע הכרעה נורמטיבית מסוימת, אך בד בבד לקבוע נורמה המבוססת על הכרעה נורמטיבית אחרת. תוצאה זו מסייעת לשחקנים בשדה המשפט במצבים שבהם ההכרעה הנורמטיבית היא "טרגית", כלומר במצבים שבהם קיים קושי בקבלת כל הכרעה בינארית שהיא.
את הטענה הזאת אדגים באמצעות חזקת המסוכנות של פורץ לבית מגורים כפי שעוצבה בתלמוד. ראשית, אראה כיצד השיקולים הנורמטיביים באשר להיקף הזכות להגנה עצמית בבית המגורים מקשים להכריע הכרעה נורמטיבית חדה, וכיצד מחוקקים מודרניים מתמודדים עם קושי זה, לרבות באמצעות מנגנון החזקה. לאחר מכן אדון בחזקה התלמודית ואראה כיצד עיצובה – במישור הנורמטיבי והספרותי – מכוון לכינונו של ריבוד נורמטיבי בסוגיה זו. בשלב השלישי אצביע על זיקות שבין החזקה המשפטית למנגנון נוסף היוצר ריבוד נורמטיבי – מנגנון ההפרדה האקוסטית ועל ההבדלים בין המנגנונים הללו. לבסוף אתייחס לפערים אפשריים בין חזקת המסוכנות במשפט התלמודי לחזקות במשפט המודרני על מנת לבחון בעין ביקורתית את היכולת ללמוד מן התופעה שהודגמה במאמר לעולם החזקות המודרני.

Berakhot Chapter 6 is a carefully-crafted chapter of Mishnah. Close reading of the chapter reveals the keywords that divide the chapter into two equal parts and link the two sections. Examination of the structure and themes of the chapter leads us to important insights regarding the meanings that the Mishnah redactor attaches to of the system of benedictions that accompany enjoyment of food.

עבודה זו בוחנת את תהליך יצירתם ופיתוחם של מקרי הפטור החריגים בדיני נזקי ממון התלמודיים. בכך כלולות שלוש מטרות משנה: המטרה האחת היא פרשנית, דהיינו: ניתוח ספרותי-טקסטואלי של הסוגיות הנדונות - בספרות התנאים ובתלמודים (ובעיקר במסכת בבא קמא). מטרה שנייה, הנשענת על מלאכת הפרשנות הקודמת לה, היא זיהויים ואפיונם של תהליכי ההתפתחות העומדים מאחורי מקרי הפטור החריגים. ושלישית, על בסיס מסקנות הדיון הפרשני ועל בסיס אפיונם של הדינים החריגים, המחקר מבקש לשפוך אור על מכלול דיני הנזיקין כולו.

This study examines the generating process and development of the exceptional cases of exemption in the Talmudic laws of torts.  Included are three secondary objectives:  The first is a hermeneutic objective, i.e., a literary-textual analysis of the Talmudic passages involved (mainly in tractate Bava Kamma).  The second objective, based upon the hermeneutic analysis, is to identify and characterize the developmental processes behind the cases of exceptional exemptions.  The third goal of this study, again based upon both the hermeneutic discussion and the results of the classification of the exemptions, is to shed light on the entire corpus of laws of torts.