theliq
Platinum Member
- Banned
- #921
Constitutional Rights Foundation: The Hebrews and the Foundation of Western Law
The Ten Commandments and many other elements of Hebrew law provided a major source for the development of western legal systems and democracy.
Three thousand years ago, the ancient Hebrew people lived in the Near East in an area called Canaan. This ancient people developed the idea of monotheism, the belief in one god. They believed that their god gave them laws to regulate their society, their religious practices, and their relationships with other people.
Conquered by the neo-Babylonians and later by the Romans, the Hebrews eventually became a scattered people, living in many countries under different legal systems. But they continued to develop their own law and tried to follow it even in foreign lands. Their law was based on the Ten Commandments and other sacred writings, which today we find in the Hebrew Bible. In developing their law, they sometimes borrowed legal concepts from other civilizations as well as passing on their own ideas. The Jewish law that developed influenced Roman law, English law, and our own Declaration of Independence and Constitution.
Equality
The Torah teaches that God created Adam, the first human, as the father of all peoples. Thus, all humans are born equal and should be treated equally by the law. This is today recognized as a major principle of law.
The Rule of Law
The Torah does not recognize the idea of kings ruling by divine right. According to tradition, the Hebrew people made Saul their first king in 1030 B.C., when enemy nations threatened their survival. But Saul and the other Hebrew kings that followed him were never considered to be gods or high priests with the power to interpret God’s will.
Hebrew kings, like everyone else, had to obey the Ten Commandments and the other laws of the Torah. The written Torah, not the whims of kings, was considered the law of the land.
Majority Rule and Democracy
The Hebrew concept of majority rule comes from the Torah’s command to “follow the multitude.” The majority decided disputes among scholars on the meaning of God’s laws, the court decisions of judges, and the local acts of Jewish communities.
Since Jews lived under the rule of foreign nations after A.D. 70, they practiced only limited forms of self-government. By the 12th century, however, many countries permitted Jewish communities to elect local town councils, the “Seven Good Men of the City.” These councils, chosen by the majority of adult males, supervised religious, economic, educational, and charity activities. The entire community often decided important questions at a town meeting.
Freedom of Religion and Speech
Being born a Jew makes one obligated to follow the Torah. But Jews must do this freely. Non-Jews have the freedom to practice their own religions. Moreover, unlike most other religions, Judaism does not actively seek converts.
A tradition of free speech existed among the Hebrews. Hebrew prophets openly spoke out against their kings and the people for failing to follow the Torah. During the long history of disputes over the meaning of the Torah, no one was tried for heresy (going against religious doctrine). Also, while the majority decided matters of law, the minority had a chance to be heard and their opinions were often recorded.
Fair Trial
In Judea, the court system had three levels. The highest court was the Great Sandedrin, which had 71 judges. Lesser courts with 23 judges dealt with death penalty cases. Lower courts with three judges handled most civil and criminal matters. Most of these courts stopped functioning after the Romans destroyed the temple in Jerusalem. In countries where they were permitted to operate, however, three-judge courts continued to hand out justice in Jewish communities.
Many parts of the Torah, Talmud, and the codes of law that followed described due process procedures to ensure fair trials. Anyone accused of a crime had the right of bail except in death-penalty cases. Traditional Jewish courts had no trained lawyers arguing cases. The prosecutor was either the victim himself or, if he had been killed, a relative (“blood-avenger”or someone appointed by the court. The accused could defend himself or ask another to plead for him. Evidence included documents and the testimony of witnesses. The consistent testimony of two male witnesses to the crime was necessary to convict the accused. The judges closely cross-examined witnesses in the presence of the accused. Circumstantial evidence alone was never enough to find someone guilty. Witnesses who broke the commandment forbidding one to “bear false witness” faced the same penalty that the accused would have suffered. The accused had an absolute right against self-incrimination and was not permitted to make statements harmful to himself. Likewise, confessions were not admissible evidence in court. There was no jury. The judges deliberated with the accused looking on. The youngest judge spoke his opinion first in order to avoid being influenced by the senior judges. The judges then decided the verdict by majority vote
BRIA 16 4 a The Hebrews and the Foundation of Western Law - Constitutional Rights Foundation
Looks GREAT AS THE WRITTEN WORD.....SHAME THAT NO ONE ADHERES TO IT.....I will only attest to one that YOU do NOT ADHERE TO,Maryland .......and it is "BEAR FALSE WITNESS...but there are others of course,but as I don't really know you,just a small Humiliation for you today......Kindly Liq
Maybe you could enlighten us all on CURRENT ISRAELI LAW TOWARDS PALESTINIANS,if you have the backbone.I'm theliq......Ever Living,Ever Faithful,Ever Sure of the Truth and Rights.
Last edited:
