Judge Noonan's book, Persons and Masks of the Law, written a decade before he became judge, stirred up both hope and skepticism. On the one hand, readers felt drawn to what today might be called a kinder, gentler vision of judging. It is a vision that insists on viewing people in their full and connected humanity, rather than as the abstracted and partial legal constructs that filter through the laws of evidence and trial court decisions to the briefs and arguments that appellate judges see. On the other hand, some readers expressed concern that the richer contextualization Noonan had modeled could not, by itself, determine particular outcomes. Those contextualizing facts require interpretation and ordering. Furthermore, for every detail seeming to point in one direction, another detail pointing to an opposite outcome is likely to be available. In other words, contextualization risks either endless regression or arbitrary truncation. Despite the polite controversy—some of the politeness no doubt due to the fact that at the time Noonan was a professor and in no danger of wreaking any contextualist havoc on the Rule of Law—his book did ensconce the trope of “empathy.”

The Kairos Document presents a theological response to the deepening political crisis in South Africa which has far-reaching consequences for the Christian community in South Africa. The Document is unique because prior to June 1985 the churches tended to reflect a typical, liberal response to the ongoing political crisis. Previous resolutions of the major denominations clearly evidence this viewpoint. The only exceptions to this pattern were the Christian Institute, the University Christian Movement and the Black Theology Movement in South Africa in the early seventies. When we met as a small group of Christians to respond to the deepening political crisis in South Africa, we were very much aware of the serious confusion within the Christian community. Moreover, we knew that the prevailing theologies of our churches exhibited inadequacies and limitations for helping the Christian community to engage in the struggle for liberation.

This paper shows that the laws of ancient Israel found in the Old Testament significantly restricted economic transactions and limited the possibility of economic growth. The paper begins by examining the production function in light of Hebraic teaching, demonstrating that theological principles can be translated into economic regulations. The paper then describes the various laws regarding land, labor, capital, and technology and analyzes the probable economic effects of such laws during approximately the fourth century B.C.

“The completion of this project was greatly facilitated by the intellectual guidance and personal encouragement of Bob Cover. He was a man who practiced, but did not preach; a scholar, and a mensch.” So reads the final acknowledgement in my book First Principles, Second Thoughts: Aboriginal Peoples, Constitutional Reform and Canadian Statecraft, which addresses the theory, law, and political practice concerning groups in Canada with special rights by virtue of their special history.

The law and life of traditional groups was a fundamental concern for Bob Cover. His Nomos and Narrative is a masterful word portrait of how the understanding of rights in a traditional group is influenced by its historical myths and by its encounters with the moral and legal standards of the larger world. The article is one of the very few law review articles that deserve the name “literature.” It could only have been written by an artist with an understanding and sympathy for the history and scriptures of a diverse array of traditional communities. It never degenerates into pedantic and empty abstractions. Its broad assertions are constantly illustrated, substantiated and vivified by reference to experiences and self-understanding of real human beings.

One of the most striking images of God, both in the Bible and in Jewish tradition generally, is that of judge: “The judge of all the earth.”In this sense, one may describe God as He who holds in His hands all legal authority: He is the legislator, He is the judge, and He is the one who executes judgment. Alongside God's judgment, the Bible recognizes the existence of a human system of judgment, in which human beings act as judges; indeed, it even commands it: “You shall appoint judges and officers in all your gates.”What is the relation between God, the judge of all the earth, and those human beings who fulfill the function of judges? The majority of classical Jewish sources in the Bible and in Rabbinic literature that deal with law and the legal system reflect a certain relationship between human judgment and divine justice. Thus, we find in the Bible the notion that God emanates His authority to the judges who perform this function. In this spirit, Moses commands the judges whom he has appointed: “judge righteously… for the judgment is God's.”The relation assumed here between God and human judgment finds expression in different ways, extending over a considerable spectrum. At one end, one might describe God as the transcendent source of authority of the legal system, whose practical significance is limited. On the other end, one might describe it as a Divine Presence that inspires the judges and even allows them to appeal to God and to involve Him in the legal decision.

Since the giving of the law on Mount Sinai more than three thousand years ago, a distinct legal system has governed the Jewish people. One of the areas included in Jewish law is domestic relations. As a result, when an American Jewish couple marries in a Jewish ceremony two distinct legal systems recognize the marriage: American civil law and Jewish law. If the marital relationship breaks down and one or both parties want a divorce American law requires that the moving party brings an action in a court of law. Assuming proper grounds exist, the court will order a divorce and American law will consider the marriage terminated. Jewish law, however, will consider the parties still married until such time as distinct Jewish legal procedures are performed. Jewish law requires that the husband give his wife a bill of divorcement, known as a get. If the husband refuses to give his wife a get, she cannot remarry in accordance with Jewish law. Such a woman, in Jewish terminology, is an Agunah, a chained woman.

With the increase of divorces in American Jewish society has come an increased number of Agunot. A further result has been legal activity, in courts and at least one legislature, to encourage or even force a recalcitrant husband to give his wife a get.