JUDAICA - Wisdom In Torah

eyAL
dic times of illegal punishments being administered – such
as cutting off the hand of a recidivist offender (Sanh. 58b), or
burning an adulteress alive (Sanh. 52b; the Talmud (ibid.),
however, adds: “That was done because the bet din at that
time was not learned in the law.”), or piercing the eyes of a
murderer (Sanh. 27a). In post-talmudic times, new forms of
*capital punishment were advisedly introduced, not only for
penological reasons but also to demonstrate that these courts
were not administering the regular law. Justification for such
innovations was found in the biblical reference to “the judges
that shall be in those days” (Deut. 17:9), the nature and content
of the Hora’at Sha’ah, as the term indicates, depending on the
circumstances and requirements of the time (Bet ha-Beḥirah
Sanh. 52b; Resp. Rashba vol. 5, no. 238). The same considerations
led to a general dispensation with formal requirements
of the law of evidence and *procedure (Resp. Rashba vol. 4,
no. 311). Conversely, prior deviations from such law, as, e.g.,
executions on the strength of *confessions only, were retrospectively
explained as exceptional emergencies (Maim., loc.
cit. 18:6).
A peculiar instance of an extra-legal remedy is the rule
that where a litigant has a dangerously violent man for his adversary,
he may be allowed to sue him in non-Jewish courts
under non-Jewish law (Maim. ibid., 26:7; Resp.Rosh 6:27; Tur,
ḥM 2; see *Judicial Autonomy; *Mishpat Ivri). In civil cases,
courts are vested with proprietary powers so as to be able to
do justice and grant remedies even contrary to the letter of
the law (Maim. loc. cit., 24:6; and see *Confiscation and Expropriation;
*Takkanot).
[Haim Hermann Cohn]
The fundamental provision referred to above allowed the
Bet Din to deviate from original Biblical and Talmudic law in
matters of evidence, procedure and penal policy, guided by
the needs of the time and the place. Based on this provision,
both the courts and the communal leaders utilized their authority
to enact communal regulations (see entry: *Takkanot
ha-Kahal) with detailed legislation concerning penal policy.
Formally, such regulations are defined as “emergency provisions”
(hora’at sha’ah), but they were in fact incorporated into
substantive Jewish law. Indeed, Jewish courts throughout the
Jewish Diaspora occasionally exercised their extra-legal punitive
powers to adjudicate capital cases, and even to impose
death sentences, without requiring a court of 23, and without
being bound by the stringent rules of evidence imposed by
the original Jewish law.
The Israeli Supreme Court discussed this issue at length
in the Nagar case (Cr.A 543/79 Nagar v. State of Israel 35 (1)
PD 113. Based on this principle, Justice Elon ruled that suspects
could be convicted for the commission of murder even
where the Court had no direct evidence of their commission
of the crime, and even where the dead body had not been
found.
For a broad discussion of this topic, see entries: *Capital
Punishment; *Evidence.
[Menachem Elon (2nd ed.)]
Bibliography: Vogelstein, in: MGWJ, 48 (1904), 513–53; H.
Cohen, in: Jeschurun, 9 (1922), 272–99; S. Assaf, Ha-Onshin Aḥarei
Ḥatimat ha-Talmud (1922), passim; Gulak, Yesodei, 1 (1922), 171; 2
(1922), 17, 18; A. Gulak, Toledot ha-Mishpat be-Yisrael, 1 (1939), Ha-
Ḥiyyuv ve-Shi’budav, 112 n. 41, 113–6; Herzog, Instit, 1 (1936), 226–8,
264f., 272f.; B. Cohen, Jewish and Roman Law, 2 (1966), 624–50, addenda
793–6; ET, 2 (1949), 11–13, 7 (1956), 385f.; 8 (1957), 512–27; Z.
Wahrhaftig, Ha-Ḥazakah ba-Mishpat ha-Ivri (1964), 51–77. Add.
Bibliography: M. Elon, Ha-Mishpat ha-Ivri (1988), 1:15f, 49ff.,
421ff., 436ff., 1324ff.; idem, Jewish Law (1994), 1:15ff, 55ff.; 2:515ff.,
533ff.; 4:1582; idem, Jewish Law (Cases and Materials) (1999), 200ff.;
M. Elon and B. Lifshitz, Mafte’aḥ ha-She-elot ve-ha-Teshuvot shel
Ḥakhmei Sefarad u-Ẓefon Afrikah (1986), 2:332, 337, 343; B. Lifshitz
and E. Shohetman, Mafte’aḥ ha-She’elot ve-ha-Teshuvot shel Ḥakhmei
Ashkenaz, Ẓarefat ve-Italyah (1997), 230.
EYAL (Heb. לָיֱ א; “strength”), kibbutz in central Israel, on the
eastern border of the Sharon, northeast of the Arab town
Qalqilya, affiliated with Ha-Kibbutz ha-Me’uḥad. Eyal was
originally founded on July 3, 1947 as a *Palmaḥ outpost near
the Syrian border east of Lake Huleh, where it fulfilled a vital
function during the Israel War of Independence (1948). After
the war, the settlement was transferred (Nov. 1, 1948) to
its present site, which was also vulnerable to attack until the
Six-Day War of 1967. Its farming was based on field crops, orchards
including organic farming and milch cattle. The kibbutz
operates two factories: Eyal Microwave for microwave
components and one for optical lenses (in partnership with
kibbutz *Shamir). In 2002 the population was 385.
Website: www.eyal.org.il.
[Efraim Orni / Shaked Gilboa (2nd ed.)]
EYBESCHUETZ, JONATHAN (ben Nathan Nata; 1690/95–
1764), talmudist and kabbalist. Eybeschuetz, a child prodigy,
studied in Poland, Moravia, and Prague. In his youth, after the
death of his father, he studied in Prossnitz under Meir Eisenstadt
and Eliezer ha-Levi Ettinger, his uncle, and in Vienna
under Samson Wertheimer. He married the daughter of Isaac
Spira, the av bet din of Bunzlau. After traveling for some time
he settled in Prague in 1715, and in time became head of the
yeshivah and a famous preacher. When he was in Prague he
had many contacts with priests and the intelligentsia, debating
religious topics and matters of faith with them. He became
friendly with Cardinal Hassebauer and also discussed religious
questions with him. Through the help of the cardinal,
Eybeschuetz received permission to print the Talmud with the
omission of all passages contradicting the principles of Christianity.
Aroused to anger by this, David *Oppenheim and the
rabbis of Frankfurt had the license to print revoked.
The people of Prague held Eybeschuetz in high esteem
and he was considered second only to David Oppenheim. In
1725 he was among the Prague rabbis who excommunicated
the Shabbatean sect. After the death of David Oppenheim
(1736), he was appointed dayyan of Prague. Elected rabbi of
Metz in 1741, he subsequently became rabbi of the “Three
Communities,” Altona, Hamburg, and Wandsbek (1750). Both
632 ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6