I have chosen for my subject some of the contributions made to Jewish law — in its widest sense — by German Christian scholars of the 16th, 17th and 18th centuries. Some sixty years or more ago I became acquainted with the writings of John Selden, the 17th century English lawyer, parliamentarian and antiquarian, whose books on the Uxor Hebraica and De successionibus ad legem Ebraeorum, and De synedriis, were a revelation to me: for a non-Jewish scholar of that period to be capable of delving into biblical, talmudical and post-talmudical sources and to compare them with other ancient systems of law, was an unexpected feat. It is not only the impeccable command of Hebrew and Aramaic that excites wonder: it is also a sincere and genuine endeavour to comprehend and describe the workings of Jewish law objectively and without religious bias. We shall see that not all theologians always succeeded in suppressing their innate prejudices; there were even a good many who conducted their Judaistic research for hostile purposes (and with those I shall not deal). Even of Selden it was said that he had voiced now and then some antisemitic remarks, but there is no trace of any personal animus in his books on Jewish law.

Our colleague, Professor Ze'ev Falk died on the eve of Rosh Hashana 5759, at the age of 75. His scholarly interests ranged widely; he was expert, inter alia, on the law of the interim period, between Bible and Talmud. Concerning later periods, his attention was given primarily to the law of marriage and divorce. He was a deeply religious man, yet free from any trace of complacency. When, as happens, he was unhappy with the way halakha went, he was wont to speak out and search for solutions. That the custodians of halakha would not tend to heed his suggestions, need not surprise. As a rule, they are reluctant to take notice of question-marks and solutions originating from without; and in their strict sense Falk was an outsider. But this was their problem rather than his.

This short paper is presented here in eius memoriam, as a token of friendship and respect. It would have been within the sphere of his interest.

May he rest in peace.

This article is dedicated to the memory of my friend, Professor Ze'ev Falk teacher and researcher, who always displayed a great interest in the history of the Jewish People.

Foreword: The Jews had been living in Spain since the Roman period, when Spain became part of the Roman Empire. Much later, Spain was conquered by the Visigoths. King Alaric II (484–507) enacted a code based largely on the Theodosian Code (438), namely the Breviarium Alaricianum (506), of which many laws dealt with the Jews. During this period the Visigoths were Arian and their treatment of the Jews was relatively good. In this article I shall examine the way Visigothic Catholic Spain dealt with the Jews and Judaism.

The genealogy of Israel in the book of Chronicles contains the following notice: (1 Ch. 2:34–35):

Sheshan's purpose in marrying his daughter to his slave was to ensure that the offspring of the union would be regarded as his grandchildren. Moreover, as Japhet points out, the Chronicler has carefully crafted the details of the story, in particular the mention of a foreign slave, so that Sheshan's tactic will conform with the slave laws of the Torah. According to Ex. 21:2–6, the children would undoubtedly be the master's, since the master had given him his wife. Lev. 25:41, however, suggests that an Israelite slave might be able to take his children with him on leaving. The identity of the father as a foreign slave avoids any difficulty on this point: he cannot leave his master at all, and any children sired by him are unquestionably his master's.

I first met Ze'ev Falk early in 1967, when I spent two months in Jerusalem in the course of my doctoral studies (with David Daube, in Oxford). His friendship and generosity to me during that period remain strong in my memory. Not only did 10 Harav Berlin become a home from home; from there he assisted me to meet others (not least, Nahum Rakover) who also became, in the years that followed, close colleagues and associates. His studies in Biblical legal terminology proved of great assistance to me, and his Hebrew Law in Biblical Times remains a useful starting point for the study of biblical legal institutions. In many respects, his early concentration on biblical law provided the foundations for his later thinking, for which he was perhaps better known in Israel, on the values of Jewish law and the problems presented by Jewish family law in modern times. I offer my tribute in the form of a study of Exodus 21:18–19, a text which, apart from its particular problems and interest, has proved a focus for debate upon the general character of early biblical law, and in particular the casuistic provisions of the Mishpatim.

In this paper I would like to examine the status of inheritors with respect to the religious obligations of a person who died and could not discharge them. Apparently, this question is completely unfounded: religious obligations are personal, and how could one person discharge an obligation by the act of another, and what possible religious value or significance could such an act have?

In our case the question is even more difficult, since the person under obligation is now dead and exempt from religious precepts. If so, what could the ramifications of his discharge from duties be? In the present discussion, I will question these premises and introduce two completely different approaches to understanding the concept of inheritance in Talmudic literature. I intend to draw attention to the close connection between the legal and religious parts of the Halakhah, which treat matters of religious permissibility and the fulfillment of religious precepts, in the same manner as they treat purely legal issues.