Jewish law mirrors merchant-arbitration customs that modern diamond arbitrators use

Evidence

Jewish arbitrators were given the authority to attempt to bring about conciliation (compromise) between parties prior to rendering their decision. … Just as the DDC arbitrators are not required to produce written opinions of their decisions, “according to talmudic halakhah [Jewish law], a party may require the regular court to submit written reasons for its judgments, but an arbitral body is not obligated to do so, even upon request.” … According to Jewish law “any custom adopted by the local merchants as a mode of acquisition is valid … since it fulfills the principle that the purpose of the kinyan [any formal act of acquisition] is to bring about the decision of the parties to conclude the transaction … some authorities even regard a handshake as the equivalent of an oath.” — Lisa Bernestein, Opting out of the Legal System, 187

Categorization

  • XREF: Parallels the earlier DDC arbitration chapter and the general theme of communal self-governance; also connects to religious pluralism in alternative dispute resolution literature. — connects to: Arbitrators familiar with industry custom resolve disputes more predictably than judges — Lisa Bernestein, Opting out of the Legal System, 236; Jewish law validates merchant customs and even a handshake as binding — Lisa Bernestein, Opting out of the Legal System, 189; The diamond trade sustains an extralegal contractual regime through private arbitration and reputational enforcement. — Lisa Bernestein, Opting out of the Legal System, 278
  • SEED: An essay angle: how disparate legal traditions — talmudic halakhah and the diamond industry’s bourse rules — independently converge on identical procedural norms, suggesting deep functional roots for non-state law.

Broader Connections