The Law of the Land part 4

Part of the reason for the non-acceptance of the "Dina D''Malchuta" principle as halachah in many circles is the fact that it would put every town council on a greater footing than the Sanhedrin. When a Sanhedrin makes an enactment, it doesn't become fully operative for a year, during which time it must be seen if the people accept it. Otherwise, it becomes a dead letter. This was the fate of enactments against the consumption of non-Jewish olive oil and beer. The people's non-acceptance became a veto. Are we saying that if a town or city enacted a rule that one could not purchase or consume alcohol on Sunday (which was actually the law in many places when I was a child), that to drink a beer would be a sin? That we would not make our consumption public, so as not to offend our neighbors, is a given. But is it logical to say that the halachic power of a few politicians is so far-reaching? Therefore, the view that "Dina D'Malchuta" is a guideline for Jews, is much more widely accepted than that it is Jewish law. Another approach, already mentioned above, is that Dina D'Malchuta does NOT refer to every new piece of legislation, but only to principles of law and conduct that are "ancient" in that society. Anyone who becomes a member of that society does so on the understanding that he will abide by those rules of conduct (providing that they do not contradict the Torah). But the power of a legislature to enact new codes of behavior, while it must be taken into account and respected in our daily lives, has no religious significance for Jews. Many rabbis will say this privately, while maintaining a different public stance, so as not to appear rebellious. Yet another issue is those laws that are "on the books", but are no longer enforced. For instance, as late as the 1980s, some municipalities had laws on the books concerning the private lives of husbands and wives. There were laws about how far apart they needed to sleep, when they may kiss, as well as all sorts of restrictions on various types of lovemaking. By then, however, these laws were seen as funny, and were certainly not enforced. Is it possible to imagine that Shmuel's principle would apply here? According to halachah, a Jew may not, under ordinary circumstances, sue another Jew in a non-Jewish court. (There are certain exceptions). The halachah is clear that even if the secular law is identical to the Jewish law in a given instance, one must still go for a Din Torah; a Torah Court. (This is one reason that I am so uncomfortable with legislation banning Sharia. Is halachah next?) There is a minority opinion, which I have grown to respect of late, that since truly qualified rabbis are few and far between in America, and rabbinical courts tend to rule based on gut feelings rather than Torah sources, one can, and should, go to the civil courts. I was convinced of this view only recently, when a close friend had a dispute with his former employers, ultimately going to a Din Torah. The decision was draconian, and violated both Torah and Civil law. I doubt very much if the "rabbi" had studied either. Almost always, the secular authorities recognize the decision of a rabbinic court as binding arbitration. Many prominent authorities consider the taking of money from another Jew through non-halachic legal means as nothing short of stealing. Rabbi Ovadia Yosef considered the practice of law by Jews as being a violation of Torah.  Moses Tendler, a prominent Modern Orthodox rabbi, disagreed; saying that Dina D'Malchuta overrides halachah; especially in America, where there is no antisemitism in the legal system. (Anyone want to buy a bridge?). When I have been called for jury duty, and they ask me if there is any reason why I cannot serve, I answer "I feel duty-bound to rule in accordance with Torah and Talmudic law". There is always a Jewish lawyer present, who asks "What about Dina D'Malchuta"? I tell him to check sources. There are, of course, rabbis who feel that a thorough commitment to the law of the land, even seeing it as religious law, is necessary for Jews to be welcomed as equal citizens. Others will argue that the Freedom of Religion guaranteed by the First Amendment to the Constitution allows for a different approach. As complicated as this is in the Diaspora, it is far more complicated in Israel. Does Dina D'Malchuta apply, or is that an accommodation only for life in exile? Can there be secular law in a Jewish State in the Holy Land, or is the Torah the only valid rule of conduct? Next time.