Jacob, son of David and Bluma Robinson and the eldest of seven brothers, was born in the little Lithuanian village of Serijai, near Suwalk on the German frontier, then part of the Czarist Empire. Among his distinguished forebears was Rabbi Yom Tov Lipmann Heller, author of the Mishna commentary Tosephot Yom Tov. His father, a well-known scholar, teacher and maskil of Wistyten (Vishtinetz) and a prominent member of the Jewish community, had been its spokesman on several occasions, and had represented it in meetings both with the Czar and with the Kaiser. A sense of Jewish public service was natural in the Robinson household.

In the summer of 1914, as the war-clouds were gathering, Jacob graduated in the Faculty of Law of the University of Warsaw. He went there not so much from choice, but because Czarist anti-Jewish legislation prevented him from studying at the great Russian centres of higher learning. Shortly after the outbreak of the First World War on 1 August 1914 (in the East), he enlisted in the Russian Army under special recruitment plans for university graduates (universanti). He served for about a year, and then was taken prisoner by the Germans after Vilna fell to them, in 1915. He was to remain in captivity in German Prisoner of War camps until the end of the War. There he had a hard time of it, and during a period of about 30 months he was in no less that eight different POW camps, where he established himself as an unofficial leader and spokesman of the Jewish POW's and of the Russian POW's as well, no doubt an early manifestation of his sense of universal humanism which was to show itself on so many occasions later.

When an industrial concern pollutes the environment thereby interfering with neighbouring homeowners' use and enjoyment of their property, may the homeowners enjoin the pollution even where compliance with an injunction could force the polluting industry to stop production?

Faced with this kind of question the initial reaction of people concerned with protecting the environment against pollution is almost certain to be in favour of granting the injunction. However, the problem has received considerable attention in contemporary legal literature and much of what has been written tends to show that this reaction is both simplistic and somewhat unrealistic. It is simplistic because an economic analysis of the facts of any given situation—which for want of a better term may be called a “nuisance-situation”—may well reveal that the defendant should be allowed to continue his polluting activity (though other measures should be taken to protect its victims from its effects); it is unrealistic because even if an injunction is granted by the court, means will probably be found to enable the polluting activity to carry on if it is economically or socially desirable for it to do so.

On two notable occasions in the past two years, it was found necessary to use legislation in order to buttress the potency of general collective agreements. The first of these occasions was when legislation was used to give overriding legal force to a general collective agreement between the Histadrut and the Government incorporating the tax reform recommendations of the Ben Shachar Committee. The second was a similar use of legislation with regard to the general collective agreement between the Histadrut and the Government incorporating the special increments recommendations of the Barkai Committee. The two collective agreements concerned shared one important quality: They both purported to derogate from rights previously enjoyed by employees under existing collective agreements. One of the reasons for legislative intervention to support these agreements was the existence of doubt as to the legal effectiveness of their attempt to derogate from the individual employees' rights.

The source of the doubt as to the legal effectiveness of such agreements lies in the existence of two distinct levels at which a collective agreement functions: the collective and the individual levels. At the collective level, conditions are determined by the collective bargaining parties, the employer or employers' organisation on one hand and the employees' organisation on the other; at this level, the collective agreement is a consensual arrangement between the parties to it, the parties fix the terms and have a contractual right to demand their enforcement. The terms fixed at the collective level take effect, however, also at the individual level; the individual employees of an employer bound by the agreement are both bound by the agreement and entitled to enjoy the rights bestowed by the agreement. The Collective Agreements Law gives forceful expression to the effect of the collective agreement's personal provisions at the individual level, giving them immediate and mandatory effect as part of each individual employee's employment contract.

In Talmudic literature the term lifnim mishurat hadin (i.e., beyond the line of the law) is mentioned a number of times. Before analyzing the various Talmudic passages where this concept is found, we will ask a number of questions, some of which we will answer in this article. Not all of the answers will be unequivocal and some questions will remain, in the end, provocative and open. Hopefully, the paper will encourage further discussion of the concept lifnim mishurat hadin.

Is lifnim mishurat hadin a specific norm of behaviour which can be precisely defined, or is it rather a concept referring to recommended ethical behaviour, similar to general moral values and examples of ethical behaviour which abound in the Talmud but which have no clearly definable characteristics? If we conclude that lifnim mishurat hadin is indeed a precisely defined norm of behaviour does it stand on its own as a specific type of moral behaviour, or is it synonymous with certain other moral norms, dinei shamayim (the Laws of Heaven), midat hassidut (the degree of ethical perfection of men of piety and virtue) or one of the other ethical norms found in the Talmudic sources? If lifnim mishurat hadin is not just another term for some other moral norm, what is the difference between them? (A reasoned answer to this question cannot be given without a full discussion of all the other moral norms in the Talmud; therefore in this article we will only suggest approaches to answering this question). Are there differences of degree within the norm of lifnim mishurat hadin itself? Are there types of behaviour recorded in the Talmud, about which the phrase lifnim mishurat hadin is not used, but which are in fact examples of behaviour lifnim mishurat hadin? If so, is there a reason why such actions were not explicitly described as lifnim mishurat hadin?

The United Nations Conference on International Organization (San Francisco, 25 April to 26 June 1945) initiated an era of quinquilingualism in the conduct of international organizational affairs, with Chinese, Russian, Spanish, English and French serving as its official languages, and the latter two as its working languages. The text of the United Nations Charter, according to Article 111, is authentic in these five languages. The distinction between official and working languages introduced at San Francisco set the pattern for linguistic practices at the United Nations. Each organ of the United Nations has since adopted language procedures suitable to its requirements, with the practices of the General Assembly initially following the pattern of the same two working languages and five official languages established at San Francisco. According to the rules of procedure of the General Assembly as in force until 1 January 1974, working languages were those in which verbatim records and the Journal were issued and into which all speeches were translated; as for the official languages, all resolutions, important documents and summary records were made available in them, and verbatim records and documents only upon the request of a delegation.

Spanish was added to English and French as the third working language of the General Assembly on 7 December 1948. Two proposals for the inclusion of Russian and Chinese respectively among the working languages of the General Assembly were rejected in 1949. The General Assembly's rules of procedure were not further altered in this respect until 21 December 1968, when Russian was included among its working languages. An amendment submitted on that occasion by (Nationalist) China with a view to eliminating the distinction between official and working languages in the General Assembly and Security Council by granting Chinese the status of a working language was rejected. Chinese was included among the working languages of the General Assembly on 18 December 1973. At that point all five Charter languages acquired both official and working language status, and the distinction between the two classes of languages ceased to have practical relevance.