Ad similitudinem arbitrorum

On the perils of commensurability and comparison in Roman and rabbinic law

Datos Bibliográficos

ID20076858
AutoresNatalie B Dohrmann (0009-0008-7278-6272, Hahnemann University Hospital, autor de correspondencia)
Año2021
Páginas365-386
Fecha de publicación2021-01-01
Peer ReviewedSí
Open AccessSí
TipoCHAPTER
RevistaLegal engagement (SOURCE_BOOK)
EditorialPublications de l’École française de Rome (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.4000/books.efr.9953
OpenAlexW3191567710
ISBN9782728314652
IdiomaEN
Referencias citadas22

Among other things, C.Th. 2, 1, 10 declares that the judgments of Jewish tribunals in civil matters will be enforced by the state as if they were issued by Roman courts of arbitration (ad similitudinem arbitrorum). The extraordinary power exerted by this analogical reasoning characteristic of the fictio iuris reasoning – comprehending all Jewish civil law as ersatz arbitration – serves as the inspiration for an exploration into the question of “similarity” between legal systems. A look at the rabbinic laws of arbitration reveals that the space opened by Rome for the operation of Jewish legal practice seems in the tannaitic sources to have been more anxiety-producing than empowering. The first part of the paper will look at the early rabbinic construction of the idea of arbitration (cf. Mekhilta de-Rabbi Ishmael, Neziqin 1; t. Sanhedrin 1; Sifre Deuteronomy §17), and map its conceptual foci in relation to similar Roman ideas. The second part of the paper reflects on the manifold methodological pitfalls (and potentials) of comparison, history, and jurisprudence in the study of rabbinic and Roman law in an imperial landscape

Augustinian Studies and Theology · Classical Antiquity Studies · Computer Science · Historical and Linguistic Studies