One of my favorite “classes” at law school was not a class at all. Once a week, along with dozens of other seemingly busy law students, I would head to Pound Hall to hear eminent international law professor Joseph Weiler lead an informal bible reading group. Two aspects of the reading group were especially intriguing: the analysis of the Old Testament from the perspective of “thinking like a lawyer” and the group’s inclusivity. All were welcomed and no prior knowledge or experience was required. The only thing one was expected to do was read the weekly portion ahead of the gathering. The reading group carried no credit and yet regularly it was standing room only. People attended because it was a fun intellectual exercise. It was a highlight of my days at Harvard Law School.1
Daphne Barak-Erez’s new book, Biblical Judgments, reminds me of the old law school reading group. Barak-Erez invites readers to “think about law and legal institutions by a rereading of the Hebrew Bible,” revisiting hidden assumptions underlying, and testing correlations to, contemporary legal systems. (P. 1). The manuscript explores excerpts from the Old Testament to illuminate contemporary challenges confronted by lawyers in six areas of law practice: law and government, judging and judges, human rights and social justice, criminal law, private law, and family and inheritance. My favorite section is Part III, dealing with individual rights and social justice. It tackles topics such as discrimination, harassment, and racism, not shying away from acknowledging the limitations of pursuing social justice back in Old Testament times and—in what is one of the book’s important takeaways—now. Turning to the old text, Barak-Erez effectively mines new, refreshing, and often surprising insights, compelling readers to revisit and rethink their own perspectives and convictions. The analysis of the principle of “an eye for an eye,” (pp. 247-48), is a typical gem, arguing persuasively that retribution is not only a justification for imposing liability but also at the same time a call for proportionality and limiting the scope of liability.
Like Weiler, Barak-Erez is not a Jewish Law or biblical scholar. She is a Justice on the Israeli Supreme Court, a renowned administrative and constitutional law scholar, and a former law professor and dean of the University of Tel Aviv Law School. Yet, also like Weiler, Barak-Erez examines the Old Testament as a lawyer with passion, ease and expertise. Biblical Judgments is a well-written, accessible read. Just as participants in my law school reading group enjoyed “thinking like a lawyer” when reading the bible, readers of Biblical Judgments will enjoy revisiting sections of the Old Testament with legal eyes. The book is not only illuminating for lawyers, but also, truly, an intellectual joyride.
More importantly, in this time of growing political, cultural and legal polarization, Biblical Judgments is a must read for lawyers because it is an essential exercise in legal inclusivity, welcoming all types of lawyers, irrespective of their political and religious backgrounds, convictions and affiliations, to participate in reading the bible and treating them all fairly and equally as legitimate readers of the text. The book defies simplistic expectations and stereotypes. It forces readers to abandon silly notions of “good” and “bad” lawyers and lawyering styles, assumptions about who reads the bible and why (think “conservatives read the bible” versus “progressives read the Bill of Rights”), and about modes of interpretation (for example, “Originalism” versus the “Living Constitution”). The manuscript demonstrates effectively that all lawyers can and should read the bible because of the lessons it holds as we continue to seek solutions for divisive contemporary challenges.
Indeed, it is exactly Barak-Erez’s close reading of the text that is so impressive and revealing. She ends up reminding all of us an imperative lesson some lawyers may but should not forget in these polarizing times: there is a legal way to read, think about, and understand texts, which is separate and distinct from a political or a religious manner of reading and thinking. As Jerry Seinfeld will observe, “not that there’s anything wrong with that”. Lawyers, of course, are welcome to form opinions as political or religious beings. Yet, they can and should remember their professional training and ability to read, think, and form opinions as lawyers, who are “public citizen[s] having special responsibility for the quality of justice” and the rule of law.2 The book takes what could be misunderstood as a polarizing religious text, which “belongs” to some but not to others, and shows how lawyers – all lawyers – can and should read it as lawyers to help address and resolve difficult contemporary challenges. In this way, Barak-Erez has authored an important book that shows how lawyers can play an important role in overcoming religious, political and cultural divides by thinking like lawyers and role modeling commitment to public citizenship, the rule of law, justice and inclusivity.
- A second “law school” highlight was English professor Marjorie Garber’s Jane Austen class but have no fear, Anne-Marie Slaughter’s masterful Civil Procedure made me want to be a law professor and David Wilkins’s Lega Profession made me fall in love with the law governing lawyers and dedicate my career to the study of lawyers and the legal profession.
- “A lawyer, as a member of the legal profession, is a representative of clients, an officer of the legal system and a public citizen having special responsibility for the quality of justice.” American Bar Association Model Rules of Professional Conduct, Preamble, Comment 1 (2024).
