Book contents
- An Introduction to Jewish Law
- An Introduction to Jewish Law
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Acknowledgments
- Abbreviations
- An Introduction to Jewish Law
- 1 Jewish Law As a Subject for Study
- 2 Jewish Law As a Religious Legal Order
- 3 The Sources of Jewish Law
- 4 Halachic Authority
- 5 Hermeneutics
- 6 Jewish Law and the Law of Nations
- Index
- References
3 - The Sources of Jewish Law
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 15 March 2019
Book contents
- An Introduction to Jewish Law
- An Introduction to Jewish Law
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Acknowledgments
- Abbreviations
- An Introduction to Jewish Law
- 1 Jewish Law As a Subject for Study
- 2 Jewish Law As a Religious Legal Order
- 3 The Sources of Jewish Law
- 4 Halachic Authority
- 5 Hermeneutics
- 6 Jewish Law and the Law of Nations
- Index
- References
Summary
A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- An Introduction to Jewish Law , pp. 47 - 63Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2019
References
Primary Sources
Elon, M. Jewish Law: History, Sources, Principles (Ha-Mishpat Ha-Ivri), Vol. 2. Jewish Publication Society, 1994.Google Scholar
Hecht, N. S., Jackson, B. S., Passamaneck, S. M., Piatelli, D. and Rabello, A. M.. An Introduction to the History and Sources of Jewish Law, Oxford University Press, 1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roth, J. The Halakhic Process: A Systemic Analysis, Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1986.Google Scholar
Secondary Sources
Blidstein, P. “In the Shadow of the Mountain: Consent and Coercion at Sinai,” 4.1 Jewish Political Review Studies 41 (1992).Google Scholar
Halivni, D. W. “On Man’s Role in Revelation,” in Neusner, J., Frerichs, E. S. and Sarna, N. M. (eds.), From Ancient Israel to Modern Judaism: Essays in Honor of M. Fox, Scholars Press, 1989, p. 29.Google Scholar
Landman, L. “Aspects of Traditions Received from Moses at Sinai: Halakha le-Mosheh mi Sinaï,” 67 Jewish Quarterly Review 111 (1976/1977).Google Scholar
Elon, M. “Modes of Halachic Creativity in the Solution of Legal and Social Problems in the Jewish Community (Heb.),” 44 Zion 241 (1979).Google Scholar
Guttmann, A. “Participation of the Common People in Pharisaic and Rabbinic Legislative Processes,” 1 Jewish Law Association Studies 41 (1985).Google Scholar
Nachalon, A. “The Communal Enactments (‘Takkanot HaKahal’) (Heb.): Their Legal Nature According to the Tashbetz,” Shenaton ha-Mishpat ha-Ivri 271 (1976/1977).Google Scholar
Bedzow, I. “Minhag Israel Torah He (The Custom of Israel Is Torah): The Role of Custom in the Formation of Orthodoxy,” 57 Leo Beck Institute Yearbook 121 (2012).Google Scholar
Gutman, A. “Die Stellung des Minhag im Talmud,” 83 Monatsschrift für Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judentums (N. F. 47) 226 (1939).Google Scholar
Kleinman, R. S. “Do the Parties to a Contract Need Actual Knowledge of Civil Laws or Commercial Practices in Order for These Laws or Practices to Function as Valid Customs in Jewish Law?” 23 Jewish Law Association Studies 93 (2012).Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. “Form und Funktion des Ma’ase in der Mischna,” 2 Frankfurter Judaistische Beiträge 1 (1974).Google Scholar
Reichman, R. “Die Stellung des Ma’ase (Präjudizes) im Talmud” (November 8, 2000), Forum historiae iuris,
www.forhistiur.de/2000–11-reichman/.Google Scholar
Zohar, Z. “Le processus du responsum,” in Trigano, S. (ed.), La société juive à travers l’histoire, Vol. 4, Fayard, 1993, p. 179.Google Scholar
Ta-Shma, I. “The Law Is in Accord with the Later Authority – Hilkhata Kebatrai: Historical Observations on a Legal Rule,” in Ben-Menahem, H. and Hecht, N. S. (eds.), Authority, Process and Method: Studies in Jewish Law, Harwood Academic Publishers, 1998, p. 101.Google Scholar
Warhaftig, Z. “Precedent in Jewish Law,” in Ben-Menahem, H. and Hecht, N. S. (eds.), Authority, Process and Method: Studies in Jewish Law, Harwood Academic Publishers, 1998, p. 1.Google Scholar
Jacobs, L. “Hazakah: Presumptive State,” in Jacobs, L. (ed.), The Talmudic Argument, Cambridge University Press, 1984, p. 110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiederblank, N. “How Are We to Determine What God Wants? Reason, Revelation, or Both,” 18 Hakirah 107 (2018).Google Scholar
Blidstein, P. “In the Shadow of the Mountain: Consent and Coercion at Sinai,” 4.1 Jewish Political Review Studies 41 (1992).Google Scholar
Halivni, D. W. “On Man’s Role in Revelation,” in Neusner, J., Frerichs, E. S. and Sarna, N. M. (eds.), From Ancient Israel to Modern Judaism: Essays in Honor of M. Fox, Scholars Press, 1989, p. 29.Google Scholar
Landman, L. “Aspects of Traditions Received from Moses at Sinai: Halakha le-Mosheh mi Sinaï,” 67 Jewish Quarterly Review 111 (1976/1977).Google Scholar
Elon, M. “Modes of Halachic Creativity in the Solution of Legal and Social Problems in the Jewish Community (Heb.),” 44 Zion 241 (1979).Google Scholar
Guttmann, A. “Participation of the Common People in Pharisaic and Rabbinic Legislative Processes,” 1 Jewish Law Association Studies 41 (1985).Google Scholar
Nachalon, A. “The Communal Enactments (‘Takkanot HaKahal’) (Heb.): Their Legal Nature According to the Tashbetz,” Shenaton ha-Mishpat ha-Ivri 271 (1976/1977).Google Scholar
Bedzow, I. “Minhag Israel Torah He (The Custom of Israel Is Torah): The Role of Custom in the Formation of Orthodoxy,” 57 Leo Beck Institute Yearbook 121 (2012).Google Scholar
Gutman, A. “Die Stellung des Minhag im Talmud,” 83 Monatsschrift für Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judentums (N. F. 47) 226 (1939).Google Scholar
Kleinman, R. S. “Do the Parties to a Contract Need Actual Knowledge of Civil Laws or Commercial Practices in Order for These Laws or Practices to Function as Valid Customs in Jewish Law?” 23 Jewish Law Association Studies 93 (2012).Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. “Form und Funktion des Ma’ase in der Mischna,” 2 Frankfurter Judaistische Beiträge 1 (1974).Google Scholar
Reichman, R. “Die Stellung des Ma’ase (Präjudizes) im Talmud” (November 8, 2000), Forum historiae iuris,
www.forhistiur.de/2000–11-reichman/.Google Scholar
Zohar, Z. “Le processus du responsum,” in Trigano, S. (ed.), La société juive à travers l’histoire, Vol. 4, Fayard, 1993, p. 179.Google Scholar
Ta-Shma, I. “The Law Is in Accord with the Later Authority – Hilkhata Kebatrai: Historical Observations on a Legal Rule,” in Ben-Menahem, H. and Hecht, N. S. (eds.), Authority, Process and Method: Studies in Jewish Law, Harwood Academic Publishers, 1998, p. 101.Google Scholar
Warhaftig, Z. “Precedent in Jewish Law,” in Ben-Menahem, H. and Hecht, N. S. (eds.), Authority, Process and Method: Studies in Jewish Law, Harwood Academic Publishers, 1998, p. 1.Google Scholar
Jacobs, L. “Hazakah: Presumptive State,” in Jacobs, L. (ed.), The Talmudic Argument, Cambridge University Press, 1984, p. 110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiederblank, N. “How Are We to Determine What God Wants? Reason, Revelation, or Both,” 18 Hakirah 107 (2018).Google Scholar
Blidstein, P. “In the Shadow of the Mountain: Consent and Coercion at Sinai,” 4.1 Jewish Political Review Studies 41 (1992).Google Scholar
Halivni, D. W. “On Man’s Role in Revelation,” in Neusner, J., Frerichs, E. S. and Sarna, N. M. (eds.), From Ancient Israel to Modern Judaism: Essays in Honor of M. Fox, Scholars Press, 1989, p. 29.Google Scholar
Landman, L. “Aspects of Traditions Received from Moses at Sinai: Halakha le-Mosheh mi Sinaï,” 67 Jewish Quarterly Review 111 (1976/1977).Google Scholar
Elon, M. “Modes of Halachic Creativity in the Solution of Legal and Social Problems in the Jewish Community (Heb.),” 44 Zion 241 (1979).Google Scholar
Guttmann, A. “Participation of the Common People in Pharisaic and Rabbinic Legislative Processes,” 1 Jewish Law Association Studies 41 (1985).Google Scholar
Nachalon, A. “The Communal Enactments (‘Takkanot HaKahal’) (Heb.): Their Legal Nature According to the Tashbetz,” Shenaton ha-Mishpat ha-Ivri 271 (1976/1977).Google Scholar
Bedzow, I. “Minhag Israel Torah He (The Custom of Israel Is Torah): The Role of Custom in the Formation of Orthodoxy,” 57 Leo Beck Institute Yearbook 121 (2012).Google Scholar
Gutman, A. “Die Stellung des Minhag im Talmud,” 83 Monatsschrift für Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judentums (N. F. 47) 226 (1939).Google Scholar
Kleinman, R. S. “Do the Parties to a Contract Need Actual Knowledge of Civil Laws or Commercial Practices in Order for These Laws or Practices to Function as Valid Customs in Jewish Law?” 23 Jewish Law Association Studies 93 (2012).Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. “Form und Funktion des Ma’ase in der Mischna,” 2 Frankfurter Judaistische Beiträge 1 (1974).Google Scholar
Reichman, R. “Die Stellung des Ma’ase (Präjudizes) im Talmud” (November 8, 2000), Forum historiae iuris,
www.forhistiur.de/2000–11-reichman/.Google Scholar
Zohar, Z. “Le processus du responsum,” in Trigano, S. (ed.), La société juive à travers l’histoire, Vol. 4, Fayard, 1993, p. 179.Google Scholar
Ta-Shma, I. “The Law Is in Accord with the Later Authority – Hilkhata Kebatrai: Historical Observations on a Legal Rule,” in Ben-Menahem, H. and Hecht, N. S. (eds.), Authority, Process and Method: Studies in Jewish Law, Harwood Academic Publishers, 1998, p. 101.Google Scholar
Warhaftig, Z. “Precedent in Jewish Law,” in Ben-Menahem, H. and Hecht, N. S. (eds.), Authority, Process and Method: Studies in Jewish Law, Harwood Academic Publishers, 1998, p. 1.Google Scholar
Jacobs, L. “Hazakah: Presumptive State,” in Jacobs, L. (ed.), The Talmudic Argument, Cambridge University Press, 1984, p. 110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiederblank, N. “How Are We to Determine What God Wants? Reason, Revelation, or Both,” 18 Hakirah 107 (2018).Google Scholar