Newspaper Page Text
by IRVING R KALEP
The starting point of Jewish
law was the first five books of
the Bible, and this Torah was
accepted from early times as
1he “fundamental law” of the
Jewish people, because accord
ing to tradition, it had been
given to them by God through
Moses at Mount Sinai. The be
lief, moreover, in the divine
origin of the “Book of the
Torah of Moses” is shared by
pious Jews and Christians
alike, and it is this document
which is not only the general
source of Jewish Law, but
which antedates the law we
follow today, at this moment,
in our United States of
America.
The Talmud is primarily
law. It is not sufficiently ap
preciated that in Jewish law
we have a separate, indepen
dent and original system, as
different from the Roman law
as is the English common law.
In large measure the develop
ment of Jewish law is part and
parcel of the development of
the Torah as a whole. Keep in
mind that Jewish law, being
an integral part of the Torah,
was never divorced from
ethics and religion. Both ethics
and religion function natural
ly and normally to elevate the
rules of Jewish law. Jewish
law, therefore, is interwoven
with morality and piety, and
ihe co-mingling of law and
ethics had reciprocal and bene-
fical effect.
This, then, is the broad
theme of this material—the
contribution which the spirit
of Jewish law has made to our
American legal system.
I have accepted the recom
mendation of Dr. Cahn in his
letter to me in which he said:
“If I had your assignment, I
should prefer to emphasize the
Jewish contribution to the
spirit of American law.”
Dr. Cahn further stated:
“To my way of thinking, the
main point is that there are
many Jewish traditions, that
,he Bible shows a multiplicity
of moral and religious attitudes.
■ hat this multiplicity is most
suitable to American demo
cratic ideals, and that many
laioyers and judges (including
some very fine Christians),
haiie draivn and continue to
draw guidance and inspiration
from the richly diverse ideals
that go to make up the total
Jewish heritage. Often these
ideals conflict with one an
other, which makes them all
the more suitable for creative
use in a society that is full of
change and contradiction.”
The guiding principle of our
way of life is that ours is a
government of laws and not of
men. This doctrine is rooted in
Jewish Law. At the very thres-
Justice Warren
and Jewish Law
The Author
This significent article appeared in
the December, 1955, edition of this
publication. The author Irving B.
Kaler has himself steadily
risen in legal ranks and civicly and politically as well.
He is today the vice chairman of
the Georgia Democratic Committee
and at last year’s Democratic
Party Convention, he was a member
of the powerful credentials committee.
hold of Jewish Law we have
the idea that government and
law should be based on the
consent of the governed. Many
centuries later Thomas Jeffer
son gave expression to that
basic belief when he stated in
Declaration of Independence:
“Governments are instituted
among men deriving their just
powers from the consent of the
governed.”
Kingship in Israel was after
all not a seizure of power, but
an office to which its holder
was summoned by the people,
and to them it returned at his
death. The office was not
hereditary, nor was it always
in practice, for the Jewish
people chose for themselves
the new ruler. Whenever a
Hebrew King committed an
act of tyranny, he was a law
breaker. He was not above but
subject to, the law. This
distinctive Jewish legal doc
trine has not received ready
acquiescence everywhere and
at every time. As a matter of
fact, 15 years after the Jews
settled in America, the doc
trine that the King’s dictate
w T as inviolate was unreserved
ly followed throughout parts
of the world. In 1670 the Chief
Justice of England declared:
“It is not possible to judge
of that rightly, which is not
exposed to man’s judgement.”
By this he meant that when
ihe King had commanded, it
was not even proper for com
mon man to review the royal
edict. Consider -also the first
act of James Stuart, King of
Scotland, when he ascended
ihe throne of England upon
Queen Elizabeth’s death. His
first act was to have a pick
pocket hanged without trial
and to trumpet:
“Kings are not only God's
lieutenants on earth and sit on
God's throne, but even by God
himself are called gods.”
The rejection by our found
ing fathers of absolute mon
archy was a return to the
Jewish legal principle that
justice to the individual was
derived directly from God’s
law, the Torah, and not from
the will of any man.
Dr. Hayim Weizmann, the
first president of Israel, upon
its re-establishment at the
opening of the Constituent As
sembly in Jerusalem in Febru
ary 1949, reminded us that the
basic legal and political phil
osophy of both our nation and
Israel is fulfillment of Jewish
law, when he declared:
“In the ancient world this
tiny country of ours raised a
standard of spiritual revolt
against tyranny. The authority
of the king of Israel was limit
ed by law and tradition. The
principle of the Constitution
was the limit set for the au
thority of the king, and in this
sense the ancient Hebrew
policy ivas the letter of consti
tutional government in the
modern age.”
Let us now consider this
doctrine as it applies to afford
ing witnesses testifying before
Congressional committees pro
tection from villification and
abuse.
Those public servants who
are withstanding the attack of
frightened souls demanding
the stripping away from our
Constitution of this basic dem
ocratic immunity are steeled
34
The Southern
Israelite