Abstract This chapter explores the complex relationship between Jewish law and local secular legal systems, examining the historical and jurisprudential theories that govern when and why Jewish law incorporates external laws. Through the principle of dina demalkhuta dina (the law of the land is law), Jewish law acknowledges the validity of secular law, particularly in areas such as commerce and civil matters, while maintaining its autonomy in ritual law. The chapter reviews four key rabbinic theories that justify when external legal systems are integrated into Jewish law, exploring the nuanced conditions under which such integration occurs. It also covers the legal and ethical foundations for respecting foreign legal systems and treaties, demonstrating Jewish law’s pragmatic adaptability in interactions with other legal traditions.

Abstract This chapter introduces the foundational elements of both Jewish law and international law, emphasizing their shared characteristic of transcending territorial boundaries. It traces the development of international law from European legal thought rooted in Roman law while demonstrating that Jewish law, through its biblical and Talmudic sources, emerged independently but parallels international legal principles in significant ways. Both systems rely heavily on judges and customary practices due to the absence of a centralized enforcement mechanism. The chapter also initiates a dialogue between Jewish and international legal scholars, suggesting that such interactions can enrich both systems, particularly in areas like treaties and the pursuit of peace. Ultimately, it aims to foster a new scholarly discourse by highlighting the mutual benefits of a comparative study between these two legal systems.

Abstract This chapter explores the contemporary relationship between Jewish law and international law, particularly within the modern State of Israel. It examines how Israeli rabbinic authorities and legal scholars navigate the tensions between Jewish legal autonomy and the obligations of international legal frameworks, especially in areas such as human rights, state sovereignty, and global governance. The chapter also highlights the intellectual debates within Israeli legal circles regarding how Jewish law interacts with international norms, exploring the balance between preserving Jewish legal distinctiveness and engaging with the global legal community. It underscores the dynamic and ongoing integration of these two systems in the present era.

Abstract This chapter addresses the historical and contemporary challenges that Jewish law faces when it intersects with antisemitic legal systems. It provides a thorough examination of how Jewish communities have historically navigated biased or hostile legal frameworks from medieval Europe to modern international law. The chapter also explores how Jewish legal thought has responded to antisemitic elements in legal systems and offers insights into Jewish law’s capacity to resist, survive, and reform under such conditions. It discusses ongoing efforts to address antisemitism within legal contexts today and, as well, offers strategies for combating bias through Jewish legal mechanisms and international law.

Abstract This chapter offers a historical survey of the interactions between Jewish law and international law from the sixteenth century until the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948. It highlights critical moments when Jewish legal thought engaged with emerging international norms, particularly in areas such as trade, diplomacy, and treaties. The chapter details how Jewish communities, despite facing significant legal discrimination, contributed to the broader development of international legal principles. Through a series of historical case studies, the chapter demonstrates how Jewish law adapted to and influenced the evolving international legal landscape, laying the groundwork for modern legal integration.

Abstract In this forward-looking chapter, the authors envision how Jewish law and international law might collaborate more closely to address future global challenges, such as climate change, human rights, and conflict resolution. The chapter proposes that Jewish legal principles—especially those related to justice, ethics, and peace—could play a crucial role in shaping a more just and equitable international legal order. It also explores how Jewish law may evolve through continued engagement with international norms, offering potential frameworks for future collaboration. The chapter concludes with a call for ongoing dialogue between Jewish and international legal scholars, emphasizing the potential for these two systems to learn from and complement each other in addressing global challenges.

Abstract There are two basic models of adoption found in legal systems. One framework has a full legal category of adoption, by which children become—as a matter of law—as if they were born to the adoptive parents and the original biological relationship is severed; this is the modern American model. The second construct has no legal category of adoption at all and denies that children legally become as if they were born to the adoptive parents. The Jewish tradition (like Islamic law and the ancient common law) is in this second construct and instead views such situations as a form of raising the children of another, or long-term foster care. The differences between these two approaches are quite dramatic. This article will focus on Jewish law, and will allow the reader to see how Jewish law—with no legal category of adoption—addresses situations where children need a new home and allows a contrast with the modern American law.

Universities that are incorporated under a secular charter face a number of challenges in claiming religious exemptions or religious character. These secularly chartered but religiously motivated universities (SCbRMU) often are attempting to get the best of both worlds, by maintaining entitlement to government funding that is exclusive to secular entities while also claiming religious protections. In this paper, Yeshiva University ( yu ) is used as a case study of the difficulties faced by these institutions. yu has been sued by a group of students and alumni for refusing to authorize an official lgbt club, and yu has argued that it is entitled to a religious exemption from New York City anti-discrimination laws. This paper discusses the history of yu and its relationship with lgbt rights, as well as relevant case law concerning religious education, discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, and religious exemptions. The paper concludes with a discussion of the legal options a SCbRMU has when faced with these issues, including shedding part of its identity (either the religious or the secular), maintaining the status quo, and defiance. Ultimately, none of the options are ideal for such an institution, and the nature of the conflict for yu , when discrimination against funding religious institutions leads to the financial need for a secular charter, and the school’s secular status then leads to difficulty receiving a religious exemption from anti-discrimination laws, show that society is not tolerant of ambiguity in this scenario, and institutions are better served if they avoid these contradictions.

Article A Tale of Two Pandemics? How a Law for Torah Reading Became a “Dead Letter” in the Wake of the Black Death—and Was Brought Back to Life by COVID-19 was published on October 1, 2022 in the journal Studies in Judaism, Humanities, and the Social Sciences (volume 4, issue 1).

This paper focuses on how Judaism recognizes the inherent equality and dignity of all people, a central tenet underpinning modern human rights thinking and doctrine. As this chapter explains, classical rabbinic approaches to the coercive enforcement of Jewish law suggest that Judaism recognizes and prescribes the protection of various material human rights such as rights to life, property, education, housing, clothing, fair employment conditions, freedom of contract, and equal treatment under the law. At the same time, rabbinic practice also offers respect for private religious conscience and dissent from Jewish ritual norms. Unlike some other religious-legal traditions that seek to compel their members to comply with ritual norms and punish religious dissent with force, Judaism has avoided doing so. Instead, rabbinic practice has tolerated private religious dissent by Jews, and has focused on using ordinary tools of group membership and association to cultivate Jewish communities of like-minded individuals who publicly respect the norms and values of rabbinic law. In doing so, rabbinic authorities have largely succeeded in carving out what can be viewed as a sphere for private freedom of religion and conscience within a normative Jewish framework.

Abstract Proposals abound in Israel to address the question of pluralistic access to the Temple Mount and the Western Wall. Each of these proposals has been a source of great controversy. In this article, we propose a Swiftian solution of privatization. We propose that the government of Israel sell the Temple Mount, the Western Wall, and many other holy sites to specific faith groups that will then operate them as private property, with the ability to restrict various rights within them. This proposal is based on a model adopted and implemented in Salt Lake City, Utah, to address various questions regarding access to property purchased by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. As you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

No AccessHuman Rights in Judaism Reviewed and Renewed. Education as a Prototypical Positive Human Right in JudaismMichael J. BroydeMichael J. Broydehttps://doi.org/10.13109/9783666301995.59SectionsPDF/EPUB ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack Citations ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail About Previous chapter Next chapter FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Download book cover 1st editionISBN: 978-3-525-30199-9 eISBN: 978-3-666-30199-5HistoryPublished online:January 2020 PDF download

In an era in which relationships that look like marriage, but are not civilly recognized as such, are common, states face questions of how to regulate these “quasi‐marital” relationships. Constitutional questions surround the regulation of consensual sexual relationships. In response, many states permit these relationships to occur with minimal governmental involvement. Some states may find, based on the couple's actions, that the individuals are common law married. Other states will simply never recognize the parties as married. Beyond marital status, some states find that the relationship has implications for support and benefits. Additional questions arise when the parties to a “quasi‐marital” relationship attempt to marry in the eyes of God, without also seeking a civil marriage. The regulation of a solely religious marriage is fraught with First Amendment concerns, and yet, many states criminalize the solemnization of a purely religious marriage in some fashion. How and whether these laws are enforced impact an individual's exercise of religion. Governmental non‐regulation of other premarital sexual arrangements suggests that there is no state interest in the regulation of a solely religious marriage.This Article provides a foray into the law that governs solely religious marriages. It addresses the factors that motivate individuals to enter into a religious marriage without also entering into a civil marriage, discusses models of religious marriage regulation abroad and within the United States, and provides insight into how the government treats quasi‐marital relationships in general. This Article advocates that states ought to treat all persons who have chosen to avoid the secular marriage process the same. That is, the regulation of individuals who have crafted a marital relationship that is purely religious should be consistent with the regulation of other non‐marital sexual arrangements. In deciding whether a solely religious marriage constitutes non‐marriage, neo‐marriage, marriage, or something else, the government should pay no attention to the man behind the curtain,1 which in this case is the existence of a religious marriage.