Governmental and Judicial Ethics in the Bible & Rabbinic Literature
CONCLUSION
Subjects reviewed in Conclusion
Summary: Chapter I – The Bible and the Law of Government, Postbiblical and Talmudic Concepts of the Law of Government, Chapter II – Legal Ethics in Judaism, Ethics of Judaism in Penal Legislation, Chapter III – Recognition of Authority, Establishment of the Court System, Ethical Leadership, The Law and Morality, Chapter IV – Divine Reward and Punishment for Rulers and Subjects, The Death Penalty, Chapter V – “Measure for Measure”, Genesis 9:6, Chapter VI – Rules for War: The People, the Army, the King, Peace: A Dominant Theme in the Bible and Talmud – Conclusions: The Task, Case Law, Ethical Questions Answered, Judicial and Governmental Ethics Theocentric in Nature, Continuity of Tradition Gave Stability, Torah as Foundation of Law, Rabbis as Judicial Figures, A Shift toward Leniency, The Challenge
Summary
Chapter I: The Concept of Law in the Bible and Talmud
The Bible and the Law of Government
The concept of law in the Bible was examined in order to establish a foundation for a more specific diagnosis of the ethics of government in this literature. The examination showed that from its very inception the Hebrew nation was governed by tōrōth (instructions) from God. They were His elect people. A covenant relationship existed between God and Israel.
When the Torah was received by the Israelites, they recognized this law as being divine in origin. Therefore, the idea of law in the Bible was essentially a theological concept. The law was viewed by the Israelites as being God’s expressed will for them. It had as basic premises the reality of God, the significance of each individual, and the need for harmony between God and His people, which could be achieved only through Israel's observance of the law.
The formative impact of the law reached into every facet of life. The order of government, by its very nature, reflected legal, moral, ethical, religious, and social characteristics. After Moses, the law was transmitted to the people by prophet, priest, judge, and king.1 Although its mode of expression varied from time to time, it continued to be viewed as a unique revelation from God possessing supreme authority.
Postbiblical and Talmudic Concepts of the Law of Government
The concept of law in the Talmud was examined from the historical point of view and analyzed with regard to the evolution of Jewish law from the time of Ezra to the redaction of the Talmud. The purpose of this inquiry was to lay a foundation upon which a meaningful study could subsequently be made with respect to the ethics of government as reflected in the Talmud. This analysis of the concept of law in the Talmud showed that the Jews never lost sight of the Torah as God’s law of government for them. However, the concept of Torah broadened to include all the Hebrew Scriptures; and, in addition, the “Traditions of the Elders,” or Oral Law, was at last written down and preserved in the Mishnah. The Rabbis saw the continuity of this Tradition as going all the way back to Moses at Sinai, and therefore viewed it as authoritative in nature.
Although the Mishnah was viewed as an authoritative text after it was compiled at the close of the tannaitic era, the evolutionary character of Jewish law continued to unfold in the halakhic work of the Amoraim and Savoraim. These Sages, working under a strong feeling of commitment to divine mandate, were concerned that every rule or regulation added to the body of legal literature should reflect, either directly or indirectly, its divine origin, the written Torah. Eventually, they brought the Mishnah and Gemara together in redacted form to produce the Talmud.
From about the beginning of the seventh century C.E. the Babylonian Talmud, for all practical purposes, became for the Jews the infallible source of the halākhāh, the law of government.
Chapter II: The Governmental Legal System in Judaism
Legal Ethics in Judaism
In order to illustrate the rationale behind specific laws in the Talmud and to show the method by which these laws were enacted, some attention was given to the process and role of legislation in producing the law of government in Judaism.
The Sages continued to practice the continuity of halākhāh in regard to legislation by inaugurating laws in areas where none had existed before, by circumventing laws which were no longer tenable, and by altering existing laws so as to cope more adequately with the circumstances of the times. This process for reaching legislative goals was implemented largely by takkanah or gezerah. The Tannaim saw the takkanah (enactment) method reflected in Scripture as far back as pre-Sinaitic times. The gezerah (decree) technique was utilized for preventive measures, usually with the idea of “making a fence around the Torah.” Before the destruction of the Temple such rulings were usually anonymous because they came from the Great Sanhedrin. After the Temple’s destruction, rulings by a Nasi and the Beth Din became an established procedure.
The Amoraim expanded the legislative scope of the earlier Sages, especially in social and economic matters, by supplementing the existing laws for greater justice on the principle of “you shall do what is right and good” (Deut. 6:18), and the deducted principle of “arise and do” (Ezra 10:8). This philosophy of legislation allowed the Rabbis to enact takkanoth which in effect (never directly) set aside Torah law to insure justice and equity. In criminal legislation the motive for many of the laws was to maintain good order in society.
Also, often the Sages recognized the valid place of established custom and the will of the people in their legislative deliberations, based upon the rabbinic interpretation of Exodus 23:2. Thus, the majority opinion or prevailing custom was often translated into law by way of the majority rulings of the courts.
Ethics of Judaism in Penal Legislation
A study of the governmental legal system in Judaism showed that ethical considerations carried heavy weight with the Rabbis as they continued their work in this field. They produced the halākhāh, the legal side of Judaism, from the Written Law, the Oral Law, traditions handed down in the form of commandments or requirements infrequently found here and there in the Prophets and Hagiographa, the teachings of the Sages, and custom.
The inherent ethical quality pervading the governmental legal system in Judaism was seen in the way the Rabbis attempted to establish and retain in legal form appropriate expressions of ethical behavior. They did this in their rulings by comparing unethical to illegal behavior on the one hand, and ethical to legal behavior on the other; likening a criminal offense to one much more serious, attaching the “worthy of death” pronouncement to a crime which was not actually a capital offense; ruling that failure to comply with the spirit of the law would result in divine retribution if not legal punishment; encouraging compliance with a particular ruling to retain their esteem; showing their displeasure in their ruling toward those who would not comply with it on the grounds there was no legal sanction involved; urging ethical conduct even beyond the letter of the law; incorporating into law by enactment what had earlier been an ethical concern; pressing for a display of proper attitude by persons involved in legal problems or situations; and requiring ethical actions on legal grounds by invoking the principle, “you shall do what is right and good.”
These techniques utilized by the Rabbis show that they thought in terms of legal-ethical relationships. The result of their work was a governmental legal system in Judaism highlighted by its ethical concerns.
Penal legislation was examined to show the high quality of ethics in the governmental legal system of Judaism. This rich resource indicated that the basic ethical nature of talmudic law pointed to the high goal of justice.
Care and caution were key themes in penal legislation. Generally speaking, for penal purposes an act was not criminal unless it was a violation of a negative biblical command. This meant there was a close link between negative injunctions and penal legislation. However, if the Rabbis felt that the Torah had to be safeguarded, they did not hesitate to apply penal sanctions even though there had been no violation of a negative command.
The ethical awareness of the Rabbis in penal legislation was noted in the following ways. They gave the accused the benefit of all reasonable doubt. A crime committed by someone through another individual implicated both parties, if not legally, at least morally.2 Ordinarily, an illegal act had to be actually performed before guilt accrued. However, in the cases of enticement to idolatry, intent to strike another, and unsuccessful false testimony, the mere intent to do wrong, if proven, was construed as guilt. An act done inadvertently did not carry liability. Additionally, an act had to be done willingly to incur guilt. Furthermore, even if done willingly, guilt could be avoided if there were extenuating circumstances. Incompetents were exempt from guilt. Taking of life in defense of person or property was to act without guilt, even though the person or property being protected might not be one’s own.
Rulings of this kind strengthen the contention that the supreme motive of talmudic law was basically ethical in nature because of the obvious concern for justice. The law remained a standard for the people. However, its application was flexible, and took into account the different circumstances and conditions involved. This flexibility, taking into account the nature of the offense, shows an ethical strain in the law in Judaism which adapted the law to man’s needs. Because of the retention of ethical principles within penal legislation, the goal of justice in the governmental legal system of Judaism remained a practical goal.
Chapter III: Enforcement of Judicial Ethics in Judaism
Recognition of Authority
The governmental ethics in Judaism were grounded in the conviction that the Torah was of divine origin and had been given to govern Israel. Therefore, the Sages were concerned that the Torah, and the laws which they subsequently developed out of Torah, be administered equitably. For governmental ethics to be enforced there had to be a general recognition of valid authority, the establishment of a court system functioning on a high ethical plane, capable leadership, and the just administration of law.
God was the source of authority in Judaism. The Rabbis agreed that Moses had received a Written Law and an Oral Law from God at Sinai. The articulation of the Written Torah and the transmission and development of the Oral Law through the ages by the rabbinic scholars enabled them to continue to develop principles of law which were accepted as divinely authorized. This meant that while God was the ultimate source of authority in Judaism, the interpretation of the Torah had been left to the Rabbis, whose majority decisions, whether right or wrong, had divine authority. This conviction was rooted in the Torah, e.g., Deuteronomy 17:11.
Establishment of the Court System
The implementing of the law interpreted and developed through the authoritative channel of the rabbinical scholars required the establishment of an equitable court system if the enforcement of governmental ethics in Judaism was to be a reality. The court system which functioned in postbiblical Judaism had its foundations in biblical history from the time of Moses, who had said, “You shall appoint for yourselves judges and officers in all your towns . . .” (Deut. 16:18). The court system which evolved in Judaism was historical evidence of a prolonged determination to attain the highest degree of judicial ethics possible.
Organizationally speaking, there was the court of seventy-one (Great Sanhedrin), which functioned as the “supreme” court until restricted and then eliminated by foreign rulers. Small Sanhedrins located throughout Israel consisted of twenty-three members. Small courts of three men could be called together by the mutual consent of the parties in a case.
The judges who served on the larger courts dealing with capital cases had to be highly qualified. Their conduct not only had to be above reproach, it had to avoid the very appearance of misconduct. They were regulated by strict judicial rules of procedure when the court was convened in order to insure a fair trial for all parties. This court system in Judaism was one of the key factors in enforcing judicial and governmental ethics within the nation.
Ethical Leadership – Men of high caliber and dedication, coupled with the efficient organization found in the court system in Judaism, were major contributing elements in maintaining an ethical system of government. Although the authority of the Rabbis was usually confined to judicial and religious matters, their influence through the courts and their religious leadership usually had a wholesome impact on the people.
Their ethical leadership was not merely a matter of law; it grew out of the heritage, biblical examples, and teachings through the ages. From the time of Moses, an outstanding leader of the people had been referred to as Nāsī. This same term, although in Moses' time designating a tribal chief distinguished for military leadership, was used for the leaders of the Sanhedrin during much of its history, indicating that the Jewish nation looked with respect to the office of leadership over the Great Sanhedrin. The authority which the Nāsī had as head of the Great Sanhedrin, and the justice which he represented as chief of the highest court, was reflected through the entire court system. Theoretically, though not always in practice, this high view of law and legal leadership made it easier to enforce governmental ethics in Judaism.
The Law and Morality
Another reason why it was possible to enforce a high governmental ethic in Judaism was the close relationship between law and morality. Law in Judaism was not a mere legal entity regulating the affairs of men; it was also designed to relate men to God properly. This meant that Jewish law and morality sprang from the same source, viz., the Written Law and the Oral Law. There was no ambiguity between law and morality. God was the origin of both. This “holy” view of law made it easier to enforce a high legal ethic. Obedience was both a civic duty and a God- given responsibility for the Jews.
This religious view also accounts for some of the most enlightened features found in the law. Since God was merciful, it was understood by the Pharisees and the Rabbis, though not by the Sadducees, that the law which originated from him should be interpreted and applied mercifully. Under this principle, morality was enhanced by the practice of going beyond the letter of the law out of concern for one's neighbor.
Under a legal system which was so closely allied to morality, the authoritative stance of the Rabbis as religious figures as well as judges was relatively easy to maintain. Since Jewish law was a matter of faith, having its ultimate origin in divine revelation, it was natural for the people to look to those scholars as the means by which the law was interpreted, expanded, vitalized, and applied. For the people, obedience to the law thus presented was a matter of morals, and this morality of obedience was closely tied to religious conviction.
Chapter IV: Reward and Punishment in Judicial Ethics
Divine Reward and Punishment for Rulers and Subjects
The principle of reward and punishment was a prominent feature in the biblical and postbiblical government of the Jews. Reward was an inducement to obedience; punishment was a deterrent to lawlessness.
Rewards as well as punishments were viewed as either administered directly by God, or indirectly by him through the application of his law. This divine regulation applied to the leaders of Israel as well as to the common people. The promises, instruction, and encouragement found in the Torah were incentives for keeping the law, as were the love, mercy, and holiness of God which were reflected in the Scriptures. However, God’s divine justice required that violators of his law be punished, and this punishment usually came through the judicial channels of the courts.
The death penalty was the extreme sentence required by law. It was regulated by specific judicial procedures and carefully defined rules of application, especially in the talmudic period.4 This extreme penalty covered a wide variety of offenses ranging from criminal and religious to social and domestic areas. There was little, if any, distinction between religious and criminal violations so far as the death penalty for capital offenses was concerned.
The Death Penalty
An ethical feature of the death penalty was seen in one of its chief motives. It was utilized to put away the evil, and not primarily for the purpose of putting away the evil person. Ethically speaking, this elevated the practice above mere retaliation or simple vengeance, and also reminded the people that one of its benefits was as a deterrent to further crime.
The judicial forms of capital punishment in the Bible were burning and stoning. Hanging was often a superimposed action on a criminal after execution, no doubt as a reminder to others that crime did not pay.
During the rabbinical period many of the severe features of the criminal law found in the Torah were either modified or eliminated. This was due, in part, to the search of the Rabbis for more humane ways of applying sanctions against crime. Other reasons included the domination of Palestine by foreign rulers, the destruction of the Temple, and the disbanding of the Great Sanhedrin.
Three major ethical principles motivating the Rabbis in their postbiblical application of the death penalty were: love (Lev. 19:18), which required the most humane death permissible under law; nonmutilation as God's way of terminating life; and death achieved by strangulation if the form of punishment was not specified. As noted above, this form of punishment for capital offenders was seen as a purging of sin from the land rather than an act of mere vengeance upon the sinner. Eventually, in their attempt to reduce to an absolute minimum the application of the death penalty, the Jewish courts developed judicial procedures which made it virtually impossible to carry out a death sentence. Consequently, the laws relating to capital punishment were then classed with the laws relating to sacrifices; that is, they were worthy of study because learning has its own merit. However, they were not to be applied.
Chapter V: Judicial Ethics of Punishment Equal to the Crime
“Measure for Measure”
One of the major principles standing out in the Torah was the “measure for measure” sanction against many kinds of law violations. This biblical principle was made viable by the ethical demand for administration of justice commensurate with the crime. The law which called for the “measure for measure” sanction and the court system through which this punishment was applied were both accepted as having a divine origin. Therefore, the application of the law in this area was the actualizing of religious convictions within legal categories.
Sometimes the “measure for measure” principle called for punishment identical with the crime. Some crimes were punishable by measures which were equivalent but not identical. In some instances the motives of the accused were the determining factor of guilt even though the deed was not actually done. In such cases, the punishment was commensurate with what the criminal had intended to do.
The talmudic era ushered in a more lenient implementation of the “measure for measure” sanctions. The “one standard” (Lev. 24:22) was retained in principle while the literal application of this type of punishment gave way in appropriate cases to a settlement involving compensation for damages. Elaborate degrees of damages developed, including depreciation, pain, healing, loss of time, and disgrace (or shame) of blemished appearance. In legal cases compensation for damages was designed to have both a civil and punitive effect.
Thus, as history moved from Torah to Talmud, one sees a continuing effort to retain the essence of the “measure for measure” principle while ameliorating its application.
Genesis 9:6
Genesis 9:6 provides a biblical source for the death penalty, a statement of the “measure for measure” principle as a valid procedure in punishment for crime, and a theological foundation for these sanctions. The ethical considerations for deterring murder were, in the final analysis, religiously grounded. Thus, the one who shed man’s blood committed an outrage against God, in whose image man was made.
The biblical sources showed that God often acted directly against the murderer. However, man’s tendency to move in unilateral action when blood had been shed was carefully regulated by legislation found in the Torah. The law provided a judicial framework in which the blood- avenger's action was regulated.
The cities of refuge were designated for the one who had inadvertently taken the life of another. This legal arrangement not only protected the manslayer but also hindered the blood-avenger from shedding innocent blood. If there was doubt as to whether the one who fled to a city of refuge had committed involuntary manslaughter or murder, he had the assurance of a public trial; he was protected from the blood-avenger; he was not turned over to him unless proven guilty.
During talmudic times the Rabbis brought these matters more completely under court jurisdiction. Under their supervision, if one who was murdered had no relative to serve as blood-avenger, one was assigned by the court. The court-appointed blood-avenger was, in effect, a dispassionate executioner of a criminal who had committed a capital offense.
Chapter VI: Ethics of Government in War and Peace
Rules for War: The People, the Army, the King
The Israelites and their leaders saw themselves acting under Divine Providence during the course of their long history. This divine leadership was as active in wartime as in peacetime. Therefore, the ethics of government during times of war were as firmly grounded in theological foundations as they were during times of peace. Thus, the biblical history of the Hebrews and the later interpretations of that history by rabbinical scholars are punctuated with example after example of wars which were fought under the impetus of divine fiat. Such were the justified, purging, regulated, holy, and defensive / preventive wars. These wars were engaged in as part of a divinely inspired “master plan” for Israel in respect to their taking and securing the Promised Land. Within this framework of divine guidance, the Israelites were sometimes restricted in war activity. On the other hand, they were encouraged by YHWH to fight his just wars. These wars were often the expression of his divine wrath; and, in view of God’s “master plan” for His people, they were required to wage total war in taking Canaan. In the course of these wars, the Israelites were expected to retaliate against the enemy war leaders and put them to death if they were captured. Refusal to do so was viewed by God as an act of disobedience.
This “war ethic” was based on the Torah. Therefore, it had theological foundations and was not devoid of humanitarian principles. Deliberate restraint for the preservation or dignity of human life was required under specifically prescribed guidelines in many war situations. There was also the regard for the Lord’s “anointed” as illustrated by David’s dealings with king Saul. Also, the rabbinical teaching that the citizens of a besieged city were allowed to escape with their lives indicates an element of war perceived with a humanitarian ethic.
Unfortunately, through the long history of Israel there were many times when war conditions highlighted actions which were clearly unethical. Since these actions were usually those of leaders, they illustrate a lapse in the ethics of government in Israel when they occurred. The civil war of Ephraim against Jephthah is an example of this type of ethical lapse.
However, perhaps the most vivid examples of unethical government and abuse of power came during the period of kingship. David displayed poor moral, ethical, and military behavior in connection with his murder of Uriah; Solomon abused his kingly power by ruthlessly removing all possible opposition to the throne in a violent and highly unethical manner; and, later, by imposing an oppressive slave labor system upon his subjects.
The power of the king was enormous. However, there was a very large body of law which applied to kingship in Israel. It was rooted in pentateuchal foundations and expanded in rabbinical writings. Key passages from Scripture on this point are I Samuel 8 and Deuteronomy 17:14-20. A definitive exposition from rabbinical literature giving theories of kingship is Maimonides’ Code, book XIV, treatise V, “The Laws of the Kings.” Although his powers as prescribed by law were great, the king could be called to account for flagrant abuses. And, in the final analysis, it was expected that “whatever he does should be done by him for the sake of Heaven.”
Peace: A Dominant Theme in the Bible and Talmud
In spite of the fact that the history of the Hebrews was often marked by war, peace is one of the major themes in biblical and rabbinical literature. The idea of peace permeated the whole fabric of Jewish life, as indicated by the large number of meanings attached to shālōm in the Bible, Mishnah, and Gemara.
Peace was, indeed, viewed as the “third pillar” in the social world, along with justice and truth. Therefore, much of the judicial material in the Pentateuch stressed laws designed to produce peace in Israel, between Israel and foreigners, and between God and Israel. Most of the laws in this context designed for the regulation of human relationships were humanitarian in emphasis. When obeyed, the result was not only greater justice and equity in the land, but also a social climate in which peace could flourish.
There was a strong theological connection between Israel’s quest for peace and the ethical humanitarianism reflected in these laws. In many cases, the motive for obedience to a particular law of this kind was to be God-like and to win God’s blessing. Thus, peace was not only established between men, but also between God and Israel. The Tradition stresses this concern for peace during the time of judges and the period of kings which followed. The reign of Solomon was idealized in biblical and rabbinic literature as an extended period of peace although other features of that period were far from ideal. God’s refusal to allow David to build the Temple because he had “waged great wars” became a sort of turning point upon which the Rabbis later built the conclusion that anything other than a defensive / preventive war was to be avoided, and that war “was only a result of the evil passions of the human heart and the failure of man to live up to the laws of God.”4
The Sages taught that peace was the primary reason for God’s gift of the Torah, and cited Proverbs 3:17 to bolster this teaching. The Tannaim devoted much of their energies to enacting laws and adjusting existing laws in the interest of peace. In fact, they produced some of the most ethical legislation in Judaism because they sought to bring morally acceptable behavior into the corpus of law with their enactments. The later Amoraim rejected any judicial interpretation of established enactments which would jeopardize peace in any way, and related many of their own rulings to the peaceful purposes of the Torah.
Thus, as time passed, postbiblical Judaism showed a very high regard for peace as an ethical, religious, legal, and moral principle. Much of the work of the Sages continued to be dedicated to implementing peace in communal, national, and international life.
Conclusions
The Task
A study which encompasses over two thousand years of Hebrew history, and attempts to probe the literature produced by the Jews in the Bible and Talmud, is an undertaking of considerable magnitude. The limitation of this inquiry to the specific consideration of judicial and governmental ethics has not eliminated the necessity of providing a continuing context within which such a study would be meaningful. This context has been provided by a historical backdrop. This historical perspective has been by design, and has kept the major theses of this work from unfolding in a vacuum, so to speak.
Case Law
By relating the ethics of government enunciated in the Bible and the Talmud to real-life situations, this study has utilized the case law methodology so prominent in this vast literature.5 This approach has enabled the inquiry to come to grips with the subject at hand in a specific way, and has been the chief motive for the consistent emphasis upon the primary literary sources. The analysis of these sources, with additional insights gleaned from many competent scholars, has produced the foregoing sections. Although many principles of judicial and governmental ethics have become self-evident throughout this study, and are spelled out in the various sections, the following conclusions need to be stressed.
Ethical Questions Answered
So far as the Hebrews were concerned, many of the basic ethical questions of life were directly related to the ethics of government. For example, the system of government under which the Hebrews lived presupposed an affirmative answer to the highly ethical question, “Does man have a freedom of choice in his actions?” Another ethical question which the Hebrews had no difficulty answering was, “What is man’s source of knowledge of the highest good?” Every Jew knew this to be the law itself, the Torah. Again, “What is the final authority for right and wrong?” was answered by recourse to the rulings of the Rabbis, the judicial work of the courts, and the interpretations of the law. All of these procedures implied a reliance upon an ultimate authority which was first revealed at Sinai.
Judicial and Governmental Ethics Theocentric in Nature
Thus, the judicial and governmental ethics in Judaism were, in fact, expressions of a system of government which was theocentric. This was more pronounced in biblical times due to the revelatory nature of the Torah. However, the theocentric aspect remained prominent in postbiblical times in the continuing amplification of the Torah, the growing body of Oral Tradition, and the vast work of the Sages in the Talmud. This theocentric characteristic found in the judicial and governmental ethics of Judaism illustrates a prime reason for the close relationship between the ethical, legal, moral, and religious fabric of Jewish life. The strands of this fabric were woven together on the same loom, so to speak, and they all went together to make a composite whole.
Continuity of Tradition Gave Stability
Another conclusion that emerges is that the maintenance of continuity within the halakhic tradition was one of the vitalizing forces which supported the authority of law and jurisprudence in Judaism through the centuries. This built-in method of keeping the law on a continuously contemporary basis, while at the same time retaining the support of the Torah and Tradition, provided each generation of Jews with a legal framework of reference that offered stability and equity on an authoritative basis.
Torah as Foundation of Law
A close corollary to the principle of continuity of Tradition was the persistent esteem for the Torah as a foundation of law and government in Judaism. Upon this bedrock the Jews built their convictions concerning ethical government and structured the judicial procedures for implementing the laws. As Steinberg has said, “Law is an element in Judaism . . . because of the intense Jewish preoccupation with ethics, and because of the historic Jewish insistence that ideals need to be put to work.”6 The governmental and judicial ethics found in Judaism are clues to the high ethical ideals present in that system of law which was rooted and grounded in the Torah.
Rabbis as Judicial Figures
It is easy to conclude that the Rabbis played an indispensable role and filled an essential place in implementing the judicial system in Judaism and in maintaining the ethics characteristic of that system. Their presence was so pervading and their judicial authority was so strong that it is safe to say the court system in Judaism could not have continued for so many centuries without them.
A Shift Toward Leniency
Finally, this study has adduced accumulative evidence to show that in postbiblical Judaism there was a rather consistent effort on the part of the Sages to mitigate some of the harsh features of the law found in the Bible. This was accomplished by reinterpretation or regulation of existing laws, or by the passage of new laws. For example, by the introduction of complicated judicial procedures in later Judaism, it became virtually impossible to inflict the death penalty for any offense.
The Challenge
The governmental and judicial ethics found in the Hebrew Scriptures and in postbiblical rabbinic literature stand out as highlights of civilization from the ancient world. It is true, there were occasional ethical lapses by individual rulers in the long course of Hebrew government and law, just as there were occasional laws which did not measure up to the generally high ethical standard of the legal system as a whole. However, taken as a complete system, and evaluated in totality on the basis of the legal and ethical principles involved, the governmental and judicial ethics which have been the subject of this study still present some of the greatest challenges to a modern world tending toward a permissive society and anarchy.
Footnotes:
1 However, only in rare instances did the king fill this role, as in the case of David, who was also endowed with prophetic qualities. The king was the executive officer of the law, not its transmitter.
2 M. B.K. VI, 4. “If a man sent out something burning through a deaf mute, an idiot, or a minor [and damage resulted] he would be exempt from the judgments of man, but liable in accordance with the judgments of heaven. But if he sent [it] through a normal person, the normal person would be liable.” Also, cf. Kid. 42b.
3 For the biblical period the evidence is very scanty indeed. For a rare example, cf. II Kings 14:5 6.
4 Meyer Waxman, A Handbook of Judaism (New York: Bloch, 1947), p. 175.
5 Hermann Kleinknecht and W. Gutbrod. “Law,” in: Bible Key Words from Gerhard Kittel’s ‘Theologisches Worterbuch zum Neuen Testament,’ [trans. Dorothea M. Barton; ed. P.R. Ackroyd], (London: A. & C. Black, 1962), p. 77. “The fact that life depends on fulfilling the Torah makes it a very important concern that the law should be developed in the direction of case-law.”
6 Milton Steinberg, Basic Judaism (New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1947), p. 145.
