CORRIGENDA
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1956.tb00387.x |
| Date | 01 November 1956 |
| Published date | 01 November 1956 |
716
THE
MODERN
LAW REVIEW
vor..
19
lawyers of Talmudic times put into practice the principles which
are
but
a programme of the liberal jurists of today.
“In
Hebrew law there was no necessity
at
all for any intervention
against formal interpretation of texts. The reading of the texts
of
the
Bible and the codes was not limited to the mere trnnslation. Many,of
the words were considered as terminologies denoting ideas, concepte and
notions. The Jewish lawyers preferred the broad and beneficial inter-
pretation against the strict letter. Meanings of texts in Jewish law
are not to be gathered from the mere literal sense of the words used
but from the social purpose which lies behind the words, and if the free
intuition of the judge was necessary it could also be used”8
The author’s presentation of Jewish law in the company of Roman law
and English law is itself
a
noteworthy contribution to comparative law and
to jurisprudence. Moreover, his fertility of ideas in the course of his
exposition calls for admiration.
It
will also provoke much discussion when the
validity of his generalisations
is
sought
to
be tested. Two major considerations
appear to me to have been overlooked. His treatment of English law is
curiously limited almost to eighteenth-century private law. The grent contri-
butions of English law to the institutions of government are neglected; and
the development of institutions by the social lebslation of the nineteenth
and twentieth centuries
Is
ahnost entirely ignored. In the second place,
I
think that some reference ought to have been made to the characters of the
political entities whose legal systems were being compared. The Roman
and English nations constitute world powers. The Talmudic lawyers were
dealing with the affairs of comparatively small communities, living for the
most part under the sovereignty of other nations. This consideration
is
surely relevant to the author‘s discussion. In putting it forward
I
do not
wish to be regarded as justifying the absence of justice from Roman and
English legal rules and institutions. Nor do
I
wish in any way
to
diminish
the importance and influence of Jewish law. Greek history and Jewish
hlstorp alike testify
to
the power of spiritual forces.
It
has been said that
philosophy comes from Athens.
It
has also been written “From
Zion
came
forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem”
J.
L.
Mo~~noss.
CORRIGENDA
In the review of
Valksrrecht&ke
und
Staatsr8chtCiche
Abhundhngen,
at
p.
281,
Professor Bilfinger was mistakenly described
aa
successor to Bruns
in
the
directorship of the Kaiser Wilhelm Institut fur auslllndischea und intelc
nationales Privatrecht in Berlin. This should read
:
Kaiser
Wilhelm
Institut
fur
nuslllndisches offentliches Recht und Volkerrecht. Property,
Freedom,
Security and the Supreme
Court
of the United States,” the words
“
the
court
should read Congress.”
In line
6;
at
p.
472
of Professor Friedmann’s article
on
I
p:
26.
No
references are given
to
Talmudic
or
other texts
in
support
of
these
views.
To continue reading
Request your trial