E. Ben Zimra, "The Use of Force in the Prevention of Crime"
(Heb.), DinÈ Israel 9 (1978-1980), 85-112. - In this
article, the use of force by one person in order to prevent the performance
of a crime by another individual is discussed. According to one group of
scholars, the use of force is legitimate only when the potential criminal
is under the direct control of the person contemplating the use of force.
Another group believes that the use of force is only legitimate in order
to prevent crimes of a special nature, and a third group maintains that
force is always allowed when the aim is the prevention of crime. In general,
however, all authorities were in agreement that any force used in these
circumstances must be carefully controlled, and strict limitations were
imposed in order to ensure such control. The writer also observes that there
is no justification for the use of force against non-observant Jews in the
present era, and only peaceful means may be used for purposes of restoring
them to the correct path. (Y.S.K.)
J. Blidstein, "The Shoter (Policeman) in Maimonidean Halakhah"
(Heb.), Shenaton Hamishpat Ha'ivri 14-15 (1988-89), 89-94
- This article compares the nature and function of the Maimonidean shoter
with the Roman institution of the agronomos and the Islamic functionary
known as the Muhtasib. Reference is also made to the office of the
Mustasaf. Maimonides' shoter resembles both the Roman and
the Arabic institutions, but also differs from them, especially with respect
to the amount of control exercised by the judges over the police force.
The views of Maimonides' predecessors regarding the role of the shoter
are also discussed. (D.B.S.)
Arnold D. Enker, Duress and Necessity in the Criminal Law (Heb.),
Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University, 1977, Pp.256. - While primarily devoted
to the conceptual and dogmatic problems of modern criminal law, this book
concludes with two chapters on Jewish law, one dealing with homicide committed
under duress and necessity, the other (in collaboration with Dov Frimer)
with the dividing line between necessity and self-defence in Jewish Law.
Ben Zion Eliash, "Negligent Homicide in Jewish Criminal Law",
National Jewish Law Review III (1988), 65-98.
Dennis H. Livingston, "The Crime of Leviticus xxiv 11",
VT 36 (1986), 352-354; see OTA 10/1 (1987), no.191.
Samuel Mendelsohn, The Criminal Jurisprudence of the Jews,
with a new Introduction by Irwin H. Haut, New York: Sepher-Hermon Press,
1991, pp. xi, 270, ISBN 0-87203-122-5, Price: $25.00 (Studies in Jewish
Jurisprudence, vol. VI). - This is a welcome re-issue of Mendelsohn's pioneering
work, published exactly 100 years before this re-print. The principal chapters
of the book are devoted to Crimes and Punishments, the Synhedrion, the Trial,
and the Execution. The author's introduction offers comparison with English
and Roman Law, relying on some of the classics of 19th Century history and
jurisprudence. The text is well documented, especially from Tannaitic literature,
the Talmud, and Maimonides. Irwin Haut provides a new introduction, which
provides some information about the author, comments briefly on the work,
and provides a short bibliography of more recent writing on Jewish criminal
jurisprudence, and on the application of Jewish law in Israel and elsewhere.
This is a useful volume for the student and lay person, and may serve as
a valuable index of sources for the researcher. (B.S.J.)
Ralph W. Scott, A New Look at Biblical Crime, Chicago: Nelson-Hall,
l979, Pp. xv, 211; see KS 57/3-4 no. 3178.
P. Segal, "'You Shall Not Take Ransom for the Life of a Murderer'
ó A Murderer's Redemption Contract?" (Heb.), Shenaton Hamishpat
Ha'ivri 13 (1987), 215-226. - Bible scholars differ over the
question of whether the prohibition, "You shall not take ransom for
the life of a murderer" is a positive law or merely a lex imperfecta.
Students of Rabbinic literature generally treat this question as a matter
of purely theoretical interest, since they do not generally view Rabbinic
law as a continuation of the Biblical legal system. In the present article,
the issue is discussed against the background of a strand of Priestly Law
identified by the author in the legal system of the Rabbis. According to
the Priestly legal tradition, this prohibition only applies to some cases
of homicide; in other traditions, ransom for the life of a murderer may
be taken. The author argues that compensation money for causing a miscarriage
is an example of such a case. He also maintains that the compensation paid
in the case of causing a miscarriage is of a criminal and not a civil nature.
The general prohibition on taking ransom in Rabbinic sources reflects one
aspect of the original Priestly tradition. (D.B.S.)
J. Weinroth, The law of the rebellious wife (Heb.), l981, Pp.
566 (Tel-Aviv University thesis); see KS 57/3-4 no. 3357.
| Officers | Constitution
| Membership | Conferences
Publications | Abstracts
| Resources | Courses
View the framed
or non-framed version of this site