The Parashat Shoftim It raises one of the oldest and, at the same time, most current questions in legal history: what does it mean to build a society governed by justice and not simply by power?
The text of Deuteronomy 16:18–21:9 does not constitute a legal code in the modern sense. However, it develops a genuine architecture of governance: it establishes judges and officials, condemns judicial corruption, regulates the king's authority, requires evidence for certain convictions, distinguishes between intentional and unintentional homicide, and assigns responsibility to the community in cases of unexplained deaths.
In that context appears one of the best-known expressions of the Torah:
“Justice, justice you shall pursue” (Deuteronomy 16:20).
Compare these principles with the Roman law It allows us to observe two fundamental traditions for understanding the legal evolution of the West. But it also requires caution: finding similarities between the two does not necessarily mean that Rome took its laws directly from the Torah.
WATCH THE PARASHATH SHOFTIM 2026 IN SPANISH
Shoftim and the principle of institutional justice
Shoftim begins by ordering the establishment of judges and officials in the cities to administer a mishpat tsédeka fair trial.
Justice, therefore, is not merely an individual virtue. It requires institutions capable of applying it.
Deuteronomy 16:19 also establishes three essential requirements for those who administer justice: not to pervert judgment, not to favor people because of their status, and not to accept bribes.
The biblical warning is especially significant: even the wise can be corrupted. Therefore, building a just society cannot depend solely on the personal virtues of the judge; it requires rules designed to protect the integrity of the process.
From there arises the mandate to “Justice, justice you shall pursue”Rabbinic tradition would later develop different interpretations of this repetition, including the need to go to competent courts and the idea that it is not enough to achieve a fair result: the path used to achieve it also matters.
The king is also subject to the law
One of the most relevant elements of Shoftim appears in Deuteronomy 17:14-20, where the monarchy is regulated.
The king of Israel may not multiply horses, wives, silver, or gold. He must possess a copy of the Torah, read it throughout his life, and prevent his heart from becoming prouder than his brothers.
The legal and political consequences are profound: The ruler is not the absolute source of the law.
There is a rule that precedes and is superior to their authority.
Although it would be anachronistic to identify this provision with contemporary constitutionalism, the principle is remarkable: political power finds limits outside the will of the ruler himself.
Shoftim also distributes functions among judges, priests, prophets, and the king. This is not a separation of powers as conceived centuries later by modern constitutionalism, but neither is it the unlimited concentration of authority in a single person.
SEE THE PARASHAT SHOFTIM 2026 IN ENGLISH
How did Roman law work?
The Roman law It followed a very different evolution.
There was no single, immutable Roman system. From the Laws of the Twelve TablesTraditionally dated to 451-450 BCE, Rome progressively developed a complex network of customs, laws, magistrates' decisions, praetors' edicts, jurists' opinions, and later, imperial constitutions.
Rome produced an extraordinary legal technique.
Concepts related to property, possession, contracts, obligations, inheritance, legal actions, and liability reached a degree of systematization that would profoundly influence later Western legal systems.
Jurists like Gaius organized the study of law around categories such as persons, things, and actions. Centuries later, the compilation ordered by Justinian would preserve much of that legacy through the Code, the Digest, the Institutes, and the Novels.
Roman Law vs Hebrew Law: Two Different Sources of Authority
One of the fundamental differences between the Roman law and Hebrew law It is found in the origin attributed to the rule.
In the Torah, the law is part of the covenant with God. Human authorities—including the king—receive and administer a set of rules that does not depend on them for their existence.
In Rome, on the other hand, legal sources were essentially institutional and human: people, magistrates, custom, jurists and, finally, emperors.
With the development of the Empire, the imperial figure acquired increasing legislative power. The Digest even transmitted the well-known maxim attributed to Ulpian, according to which the prince is exempt from the laws, although its interpretation and historical scope require nuance.
The contrast with Deuteronomy is evident: there the king must study daily a law that is above him.
Judges, corruption and the administration of justice
The similarities are also important.
Both Hebrew and Roman traditions understood that judicial corruption threatens the legitimacy of the system.
Shoftim expressly forbids accepting bribes. The Roman Twelve Tables also stipulated severe penalties for judges or arbitrators who received money to decide a case.
However, this parallel does not demonstrate a direct influence.
All societies that develop judicial institutions must face the same problem: how to prevent those who decide a dispute from selling their decision?
The similarity may respond to a universal legal need and not necessarily to a historical transmission between both systems.
Witnesses and burden of proof
Deuteronomy states that one person is not sufficient for certain convictions: two or three witnesses are required. Furthermore, it mandates a thorough investigation of accusations and establishes consequences for those who bear false witness.
Rabbinic tradition subsequently developed complex interrogation mechanisms and procedural safeguards, especially in cases where capital punishment could be imposed.
Rome followed a different path.
Their legal system used testimonies, documents, oaths, presumptions, and other forms of evidence. A fundamental principle, transmitted by the jurist Paulus, also comes from Roman law: the burden of proof lies with the one making the assertion.
Neither of these systems can be directly identified with the contemporary concept of presumption of innocence, but both participated, in different ways, in a long history of regulating evidence and judicial procedure.
“An eye for an eye”: a similarity that can be misleading
One of the most cited parallels between Hebrew and Roman law is the so-called law of retaliation.
The Torah contains the well-known formula of "an eye for an eye," while the Twelve Tables also contemplated the principle of retaliation for certain injuries when the parties did not reach an agreement.
But there is a fundamental difference.
Rabbinic tradition interpreted bodily harm in terms of financial compensationThe Mishnah lists different components of compensation, including damage, pain, medical expenses, loss of work, and humiliation.
Furthermore, the principle of equivalence was already known in legal systems of the ancient Near East long before the development of Roman law.
Therefore, the existence of similar rules does not allow us to conclude that Rome received them directly from Moses.
Did Rome copy the laws of the Torah?
This question frequently arises when comparing both traditions.
The historically most prudent answer is that There is insufficient evidence to support the claim that the Twelve Tables or archaic Roman law were a systematic copy of Mosaic legislation..
There are similarities related to perjury, judicial corruption, damage caused by animals, boundary disputes, family, property, and proportionality of punishments. But many of these problems were common to the agricultural societies of the Mediterranean and the ancient Near East.
To demonstrate a direct influence, it would be necessary to identify sufficiently specific historical transmission channels, shared texts, intermediaries, or legal dependencies.
There is no such evidence for a general reception of the Torah by Rome in the 5th century BCE
When Rome and Jewish law truly met
The situation changes when Rome expands into the eastern Mediterranean.
From then on, Jewish communities lived in direct contact with Roman institutions. In Judea and in various communities of the Diaspora, relationships developed between courts, local authorities, community norms, and imperial administration.
Rabbinic literature reflects part of that reality.
The well-known Talmudic formula in the de-malkhuta in —“the law of the kingdom is law”— recognizes, within certain limits, legal efficacy to certain norms emanating from political power.
At this stage we can indeed speak of a real historical scenario of contact between Roman law and Hebrew lawHowever, each potential influence must be analyzed individually.
The Collatio: Moses versus the Roman jurists
There is also a particularly interesting document: the A comparison of Mosaic and Roman laws, also known as Lex Dei.
This work from Late Antiquity compares provisions of Mosaic legislation with texts from Roman jurists and laws on matters such as homicide, injuries, adultery, slavery, theft, false testimony, deposits, and inheritances.
Its existence demonstrates that, centuries after the Twelve Tables, someone considered it relevant to expressly compare Moses with Roman jurists.
But the Collection demonstrates comparison and late receptionnot that the original Roman law was copied from the Torah.
This distinction is essential to correctly understand the historical relationship between both traditions.
Two old systems with profound limitations
Comparing Roman law and Hebrew law does not mean idealizing them.
Both belonged to ancient societies.
Both systems permitted forms of slavery and patriarchal family structures. Legal differences existed based on social status, sex, citizenship, or community affiliation that are incompatible with contemporary legal equality.
Rome built a significant part of its law of persons around the distinction between free people and slaves.
The Torah, for its part, established important protections for slaves and limitations on certain forms of servitude, but it also permitted the enslavement of foreigners.
Recognizing these elements does not diminish the historical importance of either tradition. It allows us to study them without turning legal history into an idealized narrative.
Rome contributed technology; biblical tradition, a powerful critique of power
A useful synthesis involves observing the different centers of gravity of both traditions.
Rome developed an extraordinary legal grammar: property, possession, obligations, contracts, actions, procedures and legal categories that can still be recognized in numerous contemporary legal systems.
The biblical tradition contributed, among other elements, a powerful reflection on justice, responsibility, limits of power, protection of the vulnerable, and the submission of the ruler to a higher norm.
This does not mean that Rome lacked moral philosophy or that Hebrew law lacked technical sophistication. Both developed complex systems of legal reasoning.
The difference lies mainly in their foundations and emphasis.
From Rome and the Bible to Western Law
The relationship between these traditions becomes even more complex with the expansion of Christianity.
The Church inherited the Hebrew Scriptures, but developed within the Roman world. Subsequently, canon law combined biblical sources, Christian tradition, ecclesiastical institutions, and categories derived from Roman law.
During the Middle Ages, Roman and canon law would form a large part of common law European.
Later came common law, constitutionalism, modern natural law, the Enlightenment, liberal revolutions, civil codifications, and finally, the modern international human rights system.
Therefore, reducing Western law exclusively to Rome or exclusively to the Bible is historically insufficient.
The West has a plural legal genealogy.
Shoftim and 21st Century Law
Despite the thousands of years that have passed, some of the problems raised by Shoftim remain recognizable.
How can we guarantee impartial judges?
How to prevent money from corrupting a sentence?
How much evidence is needed before a person can be convicted?
Who controls the ruler?
What happens when institutions are aware of an injustice and choose to ignore it?
Shoftim does not provide the technical solutions for the contemporary constitutional state. He does not formulate a modern democracy, a constitutional separation of powers, or a universal catalog of human rights.
But it raises a question that precedes all of them: Is power subject to justice, or does power decide what should be considered just?
Therein lies one of the central points of the dialogue between the Roman law and Hebrew law.
Rome bequeathed to the West a crucial part of its legal language and technical instruments. The biblical and rabbinic traditions contributed another way of thinking about the relationship between norm, justice, authority, and responsibility.
Subsequent history did not simply choose between one or the other.
She combined them, reinterpreted them, questioned them, and transformed them.
“Justice, justice you shall pursue”
Perhaps that is why the phrase that opens Shoftim's legal reflection continues to have force in 2026.
“Justice, you shall pursue justice” does not present justice as something that a society definitively possesses. It presents it as something that must be constantly sought.
The judge is subject to it.
The ruler is subject to it.
The community also has responsibilities towards her.
And no authority can fully identify with it.
That may be one of the most current contributions of Parashat Shoftim to the debate between Roman law vs. Hebrew lawLegality is essential, but a society cannot be satisfied with merely having laws.
It must also be asked, constantly, whether these laws and those who administer them are truly at the service of justice.
