Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T17:50:14.493Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Civil Jewish Jurisdiction in the Days of Emperor Justinian (527–565): Codex Justinianus 1.9.8.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 July 2014

Alfredo Mordechai Rabello
Get access

Extract

The extent to which the Roman government which had conquered the Land of Israel (Palaestina) as well as large areas outside of it (collectively termed the Roman Empire) permitted Jewish courts to rule in matters regarding Jews is a question which has attracted relatively little attention. In his fundamental book Les Juifs dans l'Empire Romain the renowned scholar Jean Juster sums up the situation of the Jewish judiciary as such: “After the fall of Jerusalem, the Jews continued to bring their cases not only before Jewish judges (whom it was possible to define as arbiters) but even before actual Jewish courts authorized to judge according to Jewish law and granted authority to do so by the Romans. The Jewish court received the status of a regular court the moment one of the Jewish sides submitted a claim to it, thereby effectively preventing the submission of the case to a rival non-Jewish court. The Jewish court thus received the authority to summon the defendant, to force him to appear, and to ensure that its rulings would be enforced. Its rulings would be recognized by the Roman authorities as coming from legitimate judicial authority”.

Type
Articles
Information
Israel Law Review , Volume 33 , Issue 1 , Winter 1999 , pp. 51 - 66
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press and The Faculty of Law, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem 1999

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 See Rabello, A.M., “Civil Justice in Palestine from 63 BCE to 70 CE”, in Katzoff, R., ed., Classical Studies in honor of David Sohlberg (Ramat Gan, 1996) 293ff.Google Scholar; Idem, “Jewish and Roman Jurisdiction”, in N.S. Hecht, B.S. Jackson, S.M. Passamaneck, D. Piattelli and A.M. Rabello, eds., An Introduction to the History and Sources of Jewish Law (Oxford, 1996) 141ff.

2 “Great work”, as defined by Menachem Stern in the introduction to his book Greek and Latin Authors, (Jerusalem, vol. I, 1974) 7Google Scholar.

3 Juster, Jean, Les Juifs dans l'Empire Romain, (Paris, vol. 2, 1914) 96Google Scholar (cited hereafter as: Juster, Juifs). Colorni claims that this authority was recognized only in the land of Israel and in some of the Eastern Provinces, but not in the Empire as a whole: Colorni, V., Legge ebraica e leggi locali, (Milano, 1945) 115ff.Google Scholar (cited hereafter as: Colorni: Legge ebraica).

4 In our estimation the change did not occur prior to this, and certainly not in the days of Emperor Diocletian. See Rabello, A.M., “On the Relations between Diocletian and the Jews”, (1984) 35 J. Jewish Studies 147ff., esp. at 157ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar.

5 In the translation of Linder, A., The Jews in Roman Imperial Legislation, Edited with Introductions, Translations, and Commentary (Detroit, 1987) 208Google Scholar. The original text has:

Idem AA. (= Impp. Gratianus Valentinianus et Theodosius AA.) ad Eutychianum P(raefectum) P(raetorio)

Iudaei Romano et communi iure viventes in his causis, quae non tarn ad superstitionem eorum quam ad forum et leges ac iura pertinent, adeant sollemni more iudicia omnesque Romanis legibus inferant et excipiant actiones: postremo sub legibus nostris sint. Sane si qui per compromissum ad similitudinem arbitrorum apud Iudaeos vel patriarchas ex consensu partium in civili dumtaxat negotio putaverint litigandum, sortiri eorum iudicium iure publico non vetentur: eorum etiam sententias provinciarum iudices exsequantur, tamquam ex sententia cognitoris arbitri fuerint adtributi.

Dat. III Non. Febr. Constant(ino)poli Honor(io) A. IIII et Eutychiano V Conss. (a. 398).

See Rabello, A.M. “The Legal Condition of Jews in the Roman Empire”, (1980) II, 13ANRW 731ffGoogle Scholar; cf. the situation of the episcopalis audientia and see Cimma, M.R., L'Episcopalis Audientia nelle costituzioni imperiali da Costantino a Giustiniano (Torino, 1989)Google Scholar; Crifó, G., “A proposito di episcopalis audientia”, in Institutions, Societe' et vie politique dans l'empire Romain au IVe siècle après J.C. (Rome, 1992) 397ff., at 408Google Scholar. See infra n. 26.

6 In Linder's translation, supra n. 5. See Rabello, A.M., “L'observance des fêtes juives dans l'Empire Romain”, (1983) II, 21, 2, ANRW 647ffGoogle Scholar.

7 On Justinian's attitude to Jews, Samaritans and heretics see: Biondi, B., Il Diritto Romano Cristiano (Milano, vol. 1, 1952) 253ff.Google Scholar; Amelotti, M., “Giustiniano tra teologia e diritto”, in L'imperatore Giustiniano. Storia e mito. (Milano, 1978) 133ff.Google Scholar; Simonetti, M., “La politica religiosa di Giustiniano”; in Il mondo del diritto nell'epoca giustinianea. Caratteri e problematiche, (Ravenna, 1985) 91ff.Google Scholar; Rabello, A.M., Giustiniano, Ebrei e Samaritani alia luce delle fonti storico-letteraerie, ecclesiastiche e giuridiche, (Milano, vol. I, 1987/vol. II, 1988)Google Scholar; M. Amelotti, “Giustiniano e gli Haeretici”, in idem, Scritti Giuridici (a cura di L. Migliardi Zingale), (Torino, 1996) 640ff.

8 Several scholars are of the opinion that the text was introduced into the C.J. from the C.T. “without the effecting of substantive changes”; see Talamanca, M., Richerche in tema di compromissum, (Milano, 1953) 141Google Scholar, and from a different perspective, Jean Gaudemet in his book L'Eglise dans l'Empire romain, p. 627, note 5 commenting: “in C.J. 1.9.8 the text appears with insertions which indicate a negative attitude regarding the Jewish judiciary”, (“au CI. 1.9.8 le texte figure avec des interpolations qui marquent la défaveur à l' égard des jurisdictions juives”).

Concerning iura and leges in the body of the constitutio as brought in C.Th. 2.1.10 see the comments of Archi, G.G., Giustiniano legislatore, Bologna, 1970. p. 59Google Scholar.

9 In Linder's translation, supra n. 5.

10 Solazzi defines this “a mystery”, “Ancora glossemi,” in SDHI, 13-14, 1948, p. 204 note 1. Similarly, see: Gaudemet, J. in IURA, 2, (1951) 265Google Scholar. It appears that L. Wenger is of the opinion that the constitutio as originally presented by Honorius and Arcadius was published a second time in the days of Gratian Valentinian and Theodosius; Institutes of Roman Law of Civil Procedure, (1940) 340Google Scholar.

11 Spade, G. Ferrari Dalle, “Giurisdizione speciale ebraica nell'Impero romano-cristiano”, Scritti Beatificazione C.Ferrini, I, (Milano, 1947) 239Google Scholar ss. = Spade, G. Ferrari Dalle, Scritti Giuridici III, pp. 279ff. at 281Google Scholar. Indeed S. Solazzi writes: “In the Roman Empire lived Jews who were forced to live by the Roman law which applied to everybody, and there were Jews who lived according to a Roman law which was unique to them. However, it is doubtful whether it is possible to establish with certainty that in the days of Justinianus there existed at the same time as a generally applied Roman law special rights given to subgroups within the Empire”; Solazzi, S., “Ancora glossemi”, in Scritti di Diritto Romano, (Napoli, vol. V, 1960) 47Google Scholar (in our translation).

12 This approach (at least in its summary part) is similar to the reconstruction presented by V. Colorni the essence of which appears in his work: “Autonomie ebraiche in Italia nel Medioevo e nel Rinascimento” in Idem, Iudaica minora. Saggi sulla Storia dell'Ebraismo italiano dall'Antichita‘ all'eta‘ moderna, (Milano, 1983) 492ff.Google Scholar Reinach translates (in opposition to this) the Theodosian text as follows: les Juifs vivant à la foi selon le droit romain et le droit (qui leur est) commun …”, Reinach, J., “Controversie, et litige, comparaison de C.Th.2.1.10 et de C. 1.9.8”, (1960) 2 IURA 186Google Scholar. Indeed this is an interesting interpretation, however, we don't agree with it.

13 On this interpretatio see Rabello, A.M., The Jews in Visigothic Spain in the Light of the Legislation (Jerusalem, 1983) 101ff.Google Scholar (in Hebrew).

14 In Linder's translation, supra n. 5.

15 For the sake of comparison see Juster, , Juifs, Vol. 2, at 152Google Scholar: “quand Théodose apporta des restrictions à leur jurisdiction civile, il dit expressement que leur jurisdiction réligeuse ne sera point limitée.” See also: Spade, G. Ferrari Dalle, Giurisdizione speciale p. 281Google Scholar: “… Arcadius ceased to be interested and left the decisions to the authorized Jewish bodies, in the spirit of the Jewish law and according to their tradition”.

16 Juster, , Juifs, Vol. 2, at 152 and n. 2Google Scholar; in the note itself doubts regarding the correctness of this interpretation are expressed, particularly in light of the text of the Basilica 1.1.40: “Il se peut que dans les Basiliques il n'y a pas erreur, mais une mesure vexatoire de l' époque, auquel cas il faut supposer que même la jurisdiction réligieuse fut totalment enlevée aux Juifs et alors c'est le texte des Basil. qui aurait influence le texte du C.J.” Agreement with the conclusion of Juster: Browe, P., “Die Judengesetzgebung Justinians”, (1935) 8 Analecta Gregoriana, 110Google Scholar; and for comparison purposes see Colorni, , Legge Ebraica p. 209Google Scholar note 30 Basilica 1.1.36.

17 Giurisdizione speciale at 280.

18 It is proper to consider the opinion of Kisch, G. on the subject “Zur Frage der Aufhebung judisch-religioeser Jurisdiction durch Justinian, in (1960) 77 ZSS 395ff., esp. at 399Google Scholar where he mentions his research from 1945. Later Kisch accepts the opinion of Berger that the deletion was intentional; Previously Solazzi claimed (inSolazzi, S., Fra norme romane antisemite p. 585Google Scholar in Scritti di Diritto Romano, III, (Napoli, 1960) 579ff.Google Scholar, at 585 “Justinius, in C.1.9.8 deleted (the word) non” Solazzi reversed himself in his article Ancora glossemi p. 203 (Scritti V, at 47) “It is certain that the ‘non’ was erased by the hand of Justinian who in this way made equivalent the two types of judgement and directed that both must be brought before the regular Roman courts … the requirement that cases which possess a religious or nationalist element of a particular people be brought before judges who are not of that people is anti-cultural and Justinian …” S.W. Baron also claims that in the days of Justinian a substantive change took place, as does Vogler, C.H., “Les Juifs dans le Code Théodosien” in Les Chrétiens devant le Point Juif, (Paris, 1979) 56Google Scholar: cet oubli volontaire du non aboutit à supprimer sans bruit la jurisdiction réligieuse des Juifs ….

The thesis of Berger was adopted also by Biscardi, A., “C.Th. 2, 1, 10 nel quadro della normativa giurisdizionale d'ispirazione religiosa,” in Atti dell'Accademia romanistica costantiniana, (Perugia, 1986) 213ff.Google Scholar

19 Berger, A., C.Th. 2.1.10 and C. 1.9.8 pr “A perferct example of an interpolation through the cancellation of a NON” in (1959) 10 Iura 14Google Scholar.

20 The Basilica is a Byzantine codification of the Roman law. Modern-day historians generally ignore this source because of the late date at which it was authored; However, it is fitting to recall that legal historians have proven that the Basilica is a most important device, not only does it add to our knowledgeof the law in the days of Justinian and the emperors who succeeded him in Byzantium, but there is also material which is important to the Classic period as well. And here is the text of the Basilica 1.1.40, (in the Latin translation of Heimbach, 1, 27):

ludaei Romano communi iure viventes in his causis, quae ad

superstitionem eorum et ad forum et leges et ius pertinent,

adeant solemni modo iudicia et omnes Romanis legibus

conferant et excipiant actiones. Qui autem horum communi

pactione ad similitudinem arbitrorum apud ludaeos in

pecuniaria tantum causa voluerint litigare, sortiri eorum

iudicium iure publico non vetentur et sententias eorum ma

gistratus exequantur, perinde ac si iudicio magistratus

sententiae latae sint.”

and for the sake of comparison also the scholium included in Synopsis Basilicorum 1,4,3 (=J.P). Zepos, V, 318.

21 A. Berger, C.Th. 2.1.10, supra n. 19, at 21.

22 Appropriate for special mention is the interpretation of J. Reinach, ‘Controverse’ et ‘litige’, supra n. 12, at 184ff — opposed in its purpose to the interpretation of Berger: in order to claim the existence of interposed material in the codex “il faudrait qu'on nous exhibe une constitution intervenue entre la publication des deux codes, qui aurait modifiée la règie que resulterait du premier”. With all due respect, it does not appear to me that the need was felt … by Justinian himself regarding his constitutio Cordi, De emendatione codicis: “… si qua emendatione opus fieret, hanc facere non titubante animo, sed nostra autoritate fretos…”

According to Reinach, the words ‘non tamen’ which appear in the Theodosian Code “relève done d'une appreciation du degré d'acuité de la controverse … Le litige doit être né et actuel … et dépasser le cadre d'une querelle sur l'interpretation de la Bible ou du Talmud … (at 187)

The problem was, in his opinion, determining the moment in which a disagreement received the distinction of ‘iudicium’ and it became possible to pass it over to the Roman courts. Justinian was satisfied, in his opinion, with a desire to simplify and established that “désormais les tribunaux pourront être saisis quel que soit l'état du conflit … il n'est question que des causes mixtes, de causes qui d'origine réligieuse degenerent en litiges” (at 187). It does not seem to us that this forced explanation of the text is a possible one for it does not take the Visegothic ‘interpretatio’ into consideration. Apart from the fact that the Scriptures and the Talmud contain long section which are purely legal in nature the true nature of the constitutio of Justinian may be discerned from Novel 146 from the year 553 which was promulgated from the court of Justinian himself.

23 G. Kisch, Zur Frage der Aufhebung, supra n. 17, at 398, n. 9, brings the anecdote of the Bishop of Paris Garmanus (d. 576) who encountered a youth who was bound because he had refused to uphold Jewish law. Indeed, its possible that the incident must be explained allegorically: The ropes symbolize the adherence to Jewish law and the Christian grace the freeing from its bonds: This is a common topic in Christian anti-Jewish polemic; see Blumenkranz, , Les Auteurs chretiens latins du Moyen Age sur les Juifs et le Judasme, (Paris, 1963): “Venantius Fortunatus, Vita Germani”, c. 65, at 66fGoogle Scholar. More than this, its possible that in this area the Theodosian Code was in force which as we noted above left the judicial autonomy of the Jews concerning religious matters undisturbed.

24 It is enough at this point if we mention the central researches done on this topic: Juster, , Juifs, II, at 29ff.Google Scholar; Colorni, V., Legge Ebraica e leggi locali, at 103ff.Google Scholar; G. Ferrari Dalle Spade, Giurisdizione speciale ebraica cit.

25 As can be seen in the above mentioned researches of Juster, Colorni, Ferrari Delle Spade, Berger and Kisch.

26 Regarding the similarity to the arrangement of Episcopalis audientia (bishop as judge) see Vismara, G., Episcopalis audientia, (Milano, 1937)Google Scholar; Wenger, L., Institutes, at 339ff.Google Scholar (and the bibliography brought there); Colorni, , Legge ebraica, at 127 ff.Google Scholar; Spade, Ferrari Dalle, Giurisdizione speciale ebraica, at 296ff.Google Scholar; Jager, J. “Justinien et l'episcopalis audientia”, (1960) 38 RHD, 214 ffGoogle Scholar. (and the survey of Kisch, in Historia Judaica, 22 (1960) 131ffGoogle Scholar.) Selb, W., “Episcopalis audientia von der Zeit Konstantins bis zu Nov. XXXX Valentinianus III”, (1967) 84 ZSS, 162ffGoogle Scholar. and see supra n. 5.

27 Spade, Ferrari Dalle, Giurisdizione speciale at 287Google Scholar.

28 Girard, P.F., Manuel de droit romain, (Paris, 1911) 609, n. 2Google Scholar; Juster, , Juifs, II, at 103, n. 3Google Scholar; Wenger, L., Institutes, at 337ff.Google Scholar; Kaser, M., in RPR, 2, at 384, n. 93Google Scholar; id., in RZPR, at 440, n. 18; 512, n. 3; 527, n. 8. On the compromissum see: Talamanca, M., Ricerche in tema di ‘compromissum’, (Milano, 1958)Google Scholar. On the compromissum and on the pactio see Ziegler, K.H., Das private Schiedsgericht, (München, 1971) 181f., 186Google Scholar, and the survey of Wesener, G. in (1982) 23 IURA 215Google Scholar. Baron and Kisch claim that an agreement which contains an arbitration clause must be in writing (ZSS, at 549). On arbitration in Jewish law see: B. Cohen, “Arbitration in Jewish and Roman Law”, in id., Jewish and Roman Law. A Comparative Study, (New York, vol. II, 1966) 651ff. On use of the term compromissum see Sperber, D., A Dictionary of Greek and Latin Legal Terms in Rabbinic Literature, (Jerusalem, 1984) 171fGoogle Scholar. and see the comment of J. Modrzejewski, at 213.

29 Spade, Ferrari Dalle, Giurisdizione speciale, at 287Google Scholar.

30 Ibid., at 294. See also at 296 — the distinction between thse types of arbitration which were once obligatory and those which were simply “of the people” is discussed. See also at 302 and on — a discussion of the possibility of appeal regarding an arbitrated decision. On the topic of force see: Talamanca, , Ricerche in tema di compromissum, cited above in n. 28, at 141, n. 422Google Scholar: from the Italian: “In this situation the decision is as binding as in a situation in which the arbitrated decision was given by an iudex. In these situations, as emphasized regarding the episcopalis audientia the scholium ZEITI in Bas. 12.1.74, an arbiter's decision may be executed without the taking of a poena: This, it appears, is because the poena is unnecessary and it is possible to adopt sanctions as a right intrinsic to the decision itself”; see also Kisch, G., Zur Frage at 395Google Scholar on iudices provinciarum for the execution of an arbited decision.

31 Schiller, A.A., “The Courts are No More”, in Studi Volterra 1, (Milano, 1971) 469 and 498Google Scholar; Idem, “The Fate of Imperial Legislation in the Late Byzantine Egypt” in Legal Thought in the U.S.A.., (Brusselles, 1970) 41ff; and see the critical remarks of Simon, D., (1971) 18 RIDA, 623ffGoogle Scholar.

32 On this topic see the study by Kerman, J.G., The Case of Flavia Christodote: Observations on PSJ I 76”, (1978) 29 Zeitschr. f. Pap. u. Ep., 191ff.Google Scholar

33 K.H. Ziegler, Das private Schiedsgericht, supra n. 28, at 263ff. Also Zingale, L. Migliardi, in Amelotti, M. and Zingale, L. Migliardi, Costituzioni giustinianee, at 6ff.Google Scholar, 9. It is very interesting to compare the case of the Samaritans, “Then upon Zeno's arrival in the land, he brought the Samaritans under the jurisdiction of the Christian courts”, see Montgomery, J.A., The Samaritans, (New York, 1907) 112Google Scholar.

34 Kisch claims that the reason for this is not founded in religious tolerance, but rather in a willingness to absolve the parties from physical punishment for their action (as would no longer be the case with the enactment of Novel 146) in (1960) 77 ZSS, 399Google Scholar, with a quotation from E. Gans in which it is claimed that we are speaking of a de facto privilege.

35 On this subject and for a bibliography pertaining to it see: Bonfil, R., “Tra due mondi: prospettive di ricerca sulla storia culturale degli Ebrei nell'Italia Meridonale nell'alto Medioevo”, in Italia Iudaica, (Roma 1983) at 135ff.Google Scholar For a discussion of this constitutio's interpretation in the Middle Ages see Colorni, V., Legge ebraica at 140ff.Google Scholar See Bonfil, R., The Rabbinate During the Italian Renaissance, (Jerusalem, 1979) 135ff.Google Scholar

36 On this Novel, see A. Linder, The Jews and Judaism, supra n. 5, at 295 and Rabello, A.M., Giustiniano, Ebrei e Samaritani alia luce delle fonti storico letterarie, ecclesiastiche e giuridiche, (Milano, vol. II, 1988) 814ff.Google Scholar

37 See A.M. Rabello, “Jewish and Roman Jurisdiction”, supra n. 1, at 145ff.

38 On the religious politic of Justinian see supra n. 7.

39 See, e.g., Watson, A., “Illogicality and Roman Law”, (1972) 7 Is. L.R. at 14 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Idem, “The End of Roman Juristic Writing”, (1995) 29 Is. L.R. at 228ff.; Idem, “Equity in the time of Cicero”, in A.M. Rabello, ed., Aequitas and Equity. Equity in Civil Law and Mixed Jurisdictions (Jerusalem, 1997) 23ff.

40 See, e.g., Watson, A., The State, Law and Religion: Pagan Rome (Athens, 1992)Google Scholar; Idem, Jesus and the Jews. The Pharisaic Tradition in John (Athens, 1995); Idem, The Trial of Jesus (Athens, 1995); Idem, The Trial of Stephen. The First Christian Martyr (Athens, 1996); Idem, Jesus and Law (Athens, 1996).