It is natural for the Israeli legislature to endeavour to free itself of the Laws that were enacted in this country before the establishment of the State and which are still in force. The legislature cannot, however, fulfil this task without first resolving whether the abrogation of these Laws should be effected by simple annulment or by replacement with other laws (and in that event within which framework). The problem is laden with responsibility when fundamentals — such as certain rules incorporated in the Palestine Order-in-Council, the “remnants of the Mejelle” and the Interpretation Ordinance — are involved which affect the entire legal system and give it its special character. Moreover, the one problem leads to another: incidental to annulment and replacement, the need for complete regulation may present itself, including aspects not previously regulated in a direct, express and sure manner.

Rules which belong to a category that can be designated as the “Law of Laws” (“Laws” taken in the sense of all law and not merely statute) are in question. As opposed to others (which are “material” since they attach legal consequences to given facts of life), these rules concern the sources, the effect, the application and the construction of other laws.

This article is a section of a doctoral thesis recently presented on “The Juridical Nature of the Bank-Depositor Relationship”. Its object was to determine the legal nature of general deposits of money in a bank account.

After discussing the various explanations in the context of some of the main Civil law systems (those of France, Italy, Spain and Portugal) the Common Law systems (England, U.S.A.) and under Israeli law, the author reached the conclusion that a bank deposit is not a deposit stricto sensu, being neither an irregular deposit nor a loan, nor even a combination of both, but rather a contract sui generis. In his opinion, the depositor, having placed his money in the bank still retains ownership of the fund: the bank acquires possession and may dispose of the customer's money, thus showing part ownership. In other words, a deposit in a bank implies a contractual fragmentation of the depositor's ownership between the customer and the bank. As a result thereof both parties maintain converging real rights in the fund, thus giving rise to a peculiar real relationship.

Neoclassical economic theory views man in his economic activities as a monetary maximizer. Efficient pursuit of economic gain requires an economic unit to evaluate his market alternatives by balancing anticipated marginal gains against anticipated marginal losses. Relevant for the initiating agent in this calculation is the amount of benefits he can anticipate to capture against the costs society's legal system force him to take into account. Benefits and costs generated by his actions to other parties, but not falling within this calculus, called external benefits and external costs, are assumed to play no motivational role in his market conduct. To the extent that society's legal system fails to provide adequate incentives to allow the initiating agent to be compensated for the full extent of the benefits his actions generate and fails to charge economic actors for the full extent of the detriment their actions impose on others, a misallocation of economic resources will occur. From a social standpoint, too much will be produced by enterprises involving external costs, while less than the optimal amount will be produced by industries involving external benefits.

Historians have often directed their attention towards Judaea when delving into the legal organization of the Roman provinces and in particular into the policy which Rome adopted towards them.

The works of Flavius Josephus, the only ones which have come to us from amongst the many other contemporary works of varying political outlook, were for a long time the historians' chief source.

Jurists, on the other hand, have not really exploited this source despite its great importance. Indeed, for many of them the numerous doubts raised as to the authenticity of the official documentation present a serious obstacle, although it is this very characteristic that could be of the greatest help in making an historical reconstruction which would also be valid at the legal level.

Now however, the recent discoveries in the Dead Sea have brought to light new material of undoubted authenticity. This material sheds light on what was one of the most troubled Roman provinces for both the historian and the jurists.