Some people are trying to lobby the university to make sure that it doesn’t become a forum for incitement, although I am not sure if they would really like to see it cancelled.  A university should be about critical discussion of ideas and issues and not ignoring them.

Call for Papers:

Location and schedule: The Jewish Law Association in conjunction with Yale University Program in Judaic Studies will hold the 17th
International conference of the JLA at the Yale University Law School, New Haven, Connecticut, U.S.A., on July 30-August 2, 2012.

Proposals for papers: The Conference will include a thematic stream on Interaction of Jewish and Other Legal Systems (from ancient to modern times), but presenters may choose any topic and approach to Jewish Law (historical, doctrinal, comparative or philosophical).

Papers will be allocated 45-minute slots, to include 15 minutes of discussion. Papers at the Association’s conferences are normally
published in Jewish Law Association Studies, subject to peer review.

Proposals for papers should include the paper’s title, a short description of its contents (200 words maximum), and be accompanied by an updated C.V. Please transmit all this material to the conference committee at the following e-mail address: jla2012conference-at-gmail.com no later than January 31st, 2012.

Founded in 1978, the Jewish Law Association seeks to promote study and research in Jewish Law. It provides a major interdisciplinary meeting point for scholars and practitioners in both Law and Jewish Studies. Its membership represents diverse religious, philosophical and intellectual perspectives, and is drawn from many nations, from Israel to Brazil, from Canada and the United States to Australia, from Western Europe to South Africa.

Registration for the conference will include the $50.00 membership fee for 2012 (and its member privileges, including publications: see the Membership page on the Association’s website, at http://jewishlawassociation.org/), if not already paid.
Conference papers are, in principle, to be given in English. As in the past, members who prefer to present in Hebrew are asked to prepare for distribution a translation of their paper into English.
The conference academic committee will review each proposal and its relevance to the conference. The committee is not obligated to accept any proposal.

The Yeshiva University Center for Israel Studies presents an international conference for Sunday and Monday, March 27-8, 2011, which will take place at Yeshiva University Museum and on our historic Washington Heights campus. The conference is titled: Talmuda de-Eretz Israel: Archaeology and the Rabbis in Late Antique Palestine. In the century since Samuel Krauss’ Talmudische Archaeologie, massive strides have been made toward the integration of archaeology into the study of Rabbinic literature and of Rabbinic literature into the study of classical archaeology. This paradigm shift has altered the ways that we view the Rabbis, their literature, Jewish history and the broader Roman world, resulting in numerous publications, conferences and exhibitions. This conference will focus explicitly upon intersections between Palestinian Rabbis and archaeology from the vantage point of Rabbinic literature. Each participant will be asked explore ways that archaeological discoveries impact our understanding of specific rabbinic texts. The conference and the resulting volume will provide a range of viewpoints on well known, and less-well known rabbinic sources, and the ways that archaeology helps us to better understand them and the world in which they were composed.

On a related note, The Oxford Handbook of Jewish Daily Life in Roman Palestine will be available this Fall. From the table of contents it looks like it will be a very good book, and I will be glad to accept a review or gift copy.

Calum Carmichael spoke about the relationship between the Judah and Tamar story and the laws of the nazirite. He emphasized that biblical law grew out of narrative and not out of societal reality, something which he has written about extensively. See this review of one of his books for a discussion of this approach.

Ron Kleiman presented an interesting paper on “Transfer of Ownership in E-Commerce: Transactions in Jewish, American, and Israeli Law.” He tried to address the question of when does an individual gain ownership of an item that they buy online. From his presentation it became clear that it is not a simple question to answer. Is ownership acquired when one enters their credit card information? Delivery? According to Kleiman, in Jewish law E-commerce is not based upon kinyan, acquisition of ownership, but rather on a contractual obligation.

Jonathan Milgram introduced his current research on Jewish Inheritance Law, explaining how he has come to different conclusions than Reuven Yaron in his classic book Gifts in Contemplation of Death in Jewish & Roman law. Milgram explained how some of the situations in which he came to different conclusions than Yaron are based upon newer methods of examining Tannaitic literature which were not at Yaron’s disposal when he wrote his book.

Yuval Sinai attempted to demonstrate that the Babylonian and Palestinian sages exhibited different attitudes towards the obligation to judge and the status of the judge him/herself. Sinai understands the Palestinian sages projected legal passivity while those of Babylonia supported a greater role for judges, with some understanding it to be a religious duty. One example that he brought, which was contested by someone in the audience, is that of אין לו לדיין אלא מה שעיניו רואות, “A judge only has what their eyes see.” According to Sinai the Palestinian sages understood this term to be an acknowledgement after the fact of dispensation from punishment in the case of an erroneous opinion. On the other hand, Babylonian sages understood this to mean that the judge had a great amount of legal discretion. Two sources that he brought compared were y. Sanhedrin 1:9 and b. Baba Batra 30b.

Ilan Fuchs spoke on the way in which women in judicial roles has been interpreted by numerous halakkists. He tried to answer the question why certain halakhists who exhibited flexibility and leniency in certain circumstances, suddenly wouldn’t budge when it came to woman as judges. Fuchs understood their opposition to be grounded in the symbolic power of a woman as a judge. The symbolic power was more important than the purely legal question. For an example of the interesting research that Fuchs is doing, see his article, ‘Sephardic’ Halakhah? The Attitude of Sephardic Decisors to Women’s Torah Study: A Test Case .