Biblical law is a complex concept that contains several distinct legal currents. In an effort to explore the interplay of these currents, this article first focuses on the overlap between the biblical law of God and the strictly legal regulations of the Old Testament. It then unpacks the principles and inner rationalities of what is termed “archaic law” and shows that this law is connected with regulations that could be termed “mercy laws” and with cultic regulations. By extrapolating the normative dynamics between these three codes of the law, the article exposes the enormous moral, religious, and legal influence of biblical law in general and of the mercy code in particular. In this way, the article reveals a backbone of our occidental culture. The interdependence of justice and mercy drives societies and cultures to search for (humane) justice in a deep and truth-bound way and, further, to routinize social care and welfare beyond the boundaries of families and tribal relations. The article finally illuminates both commonalities and differences between mercy and a deep and encompassing understanding of love.

This article considers the treatment of religious purposes in charity law from a liberal perspective informed by the work of the political philosopher Joseph Raz. The article begins by describing briefly the main ideas in Razian liberalism. It then considers the key question when thinking from a Razian perspective about the treatment of religious purposes in charity law: To what extent does the state's promotion of religious purposes via charity law promote the conditions of autonomy? Finally, the article considers the practical reasoning of state officials who deliberate about religious purposes in the charity law setting, asking to what extent such reasoning meets an ideal of public reason informed by Razian liberalism. The article concludes that in many, but not all, respects the treatment of religious purposes in charity law is consistent with Razian liberal commitments.

The academic discourse regarding welfare policy has generally been dominated by views focused on the distribution of resources and welfare. In recent years, another school of thought, known as “relational egalitarianism,” has emerged and shifted the focal point of social welfare policy from traditional redistribution to other aspects of social status. In this article, I will analyze a similar paradigm shift that occurred in the fashioning of the institution of the second tithe in the classical sources of Jewish law. The institution of the second tithe is ostensibly irrelevant to social welfare policy both from the internal perspective of Jewish law and from the external general-theoretical perspective. From the Jewish law perspective, it is not normally conceived of as an institution with a social-welfare goal, and from the general theoretical perspective, it seems to be an anachronistic institution that cannot enrich the modern theoretical discourse. In this article, I will try to expose the social role that was imbued in this institution through its reconstruction by the Sages. I argue that the concealed and indirect mechanism for the promotion of social goals may promote the social status of individuals in society more effectively than conventional social welfare mechanisms. In this respect, the reshaping of the second tithe may provide inspiration for enriching the arsenal of possible relational egalitarian social policy prescriptions.

In re A was decided by the English courts in 2000. Twin girls, named Jodie and Mary for purposes of the decision, were born joined together at their lower extremities. Jodie's heart and lungs were more or less healthy. But Mary's were insufficiently developed and could not provide her with the flow of blood and oxygen needed to survive. However, the girls shared a single circulatory system so that Jodie's heart pumped blood that flowed through both their bodies. In this manner, Jodie's heart and lungs kept Mary alive. According to the doctors, this situation could continue for a period of three to six months, or a bit longer, at the most. As the girls grew, Jodie would be unable to provide sufficient blood and oxygen to support both Mary and herself. Both would die. The doctors recommended surgical separation of the two girls. Mary would necessarily die “within minutes,” being cut off from her source of sustenance. Jodie would have a good chance of surviving. The legal issue presented was whether the doctors may perform the surgery that would cause Mary's death. At issue were questions concerning the scope of self-defense and necessity. In the course of the Court's opinions, brief reference was made to Jewish law. This article considers the Jewish law sources that bear on these issues.

Rabbi Shlomo Goren was one of the leading rabbinic figures in religious Zionist circles. As the first chief Rabbi of the Israeli military, he had a unique opportunity to influence the development of the Israeli army and its policies. He needed to deal with questions that had no precedents in Jewish law. One of his challenges was the part international law played in the formation of a modern army. Rabbi Goren wished to give a halachic perspective to questions of international law, and to do that, he had to translate the language of international law, a field developed in the modern period, to halachic language. This process led him to evaluate moral positions that are part of international law and the ability of halacha to be part of the modern world.

Harakat al-Shabaab al-Mujahideen, usually referred to as al-Shabaab (the youth), is known primarily as a Somali terrorist group. But since the end of 2008, it has functioned as a state power in large parts of Southern and Central Somalia. In this article, I analyze the main legal body of the group: the qāḍī court. In order to establish law and order in their territories, al-Shabaab has applied their own version of sharī'a. The article reveals that al-Shabaab's application of criminal law follows the inherent logic of classical Islamic legal doctrines on several points. However, the al-Shabaab courts tend to overlook many of the strict requirements regarding evidence and procedure that were outlined by the medieval Muslim scholars in order to humanize Islamic law. Therefore, the legal reality of al-Shabaab's regime is far more brutal than that of most other Islamic-inspired regimes in the contemporary Muslim world. Al-Shabaab's practice of Islamic criminal law may be seen not only as a means to exercise control through fear but also as an effective way of filling the vacuum of insecurity and instability that has followed twenty years of violence and the absence of state institutions in its territories. I argue that, in order to understand al-Shabaab's current practice of criminal law, one has to take into consideration the group's jihadi-Salafi affiliation. According to Salafi notions, sharī'a is not only a means to an end, but an end in itself. As such, sharī'a (i.e., God's divine law) is the visual symbol of an Islamic state. Consequently, the application of Islamic criminal law, and especially of the ḥudūd punishments, provides al-Shabaab with political-religious legitimacy.

Today I want to talk about Augustine's Confessions, a book that may seem a far cry indeed from the life of the modern lawyer—especially the lawyer for whom what we call “religion” seems a very distant matter. But I think Augustine has much to say to us about the nature of a good education, including a good legal education, and I hope this is so whether or not one shares his religious commitments.