Anonymous

Abiding by Civilian Law: Difference between revisions

From Halachipedia
m
Text replacement - " Biblical" to " biblical"
No edit summary
m (Text replacement - " Biblical" to " biblical")
(11 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 21: Line 21:
##Some say that dina d'malchusa dina only applies to laws related directly to the land (i.e. real estate).<ref>Rama C.M. 369:8. Rav Asher Weiss (Shut Minchas Asher 2:121:4:3) suggests that this works nicely with the opinion of the Ran quoted above that dina d'malchusa works because the land belongs to the king. However, according to the Rashbam quoted above that dina d'malchusa is a social contract, one could argue that there is no reason to distinguish between laws related to the land and other laws. However, he suggests that even according to the Ran, you don't have to distinguish as since the land belongs to him, he makes the rules</ref>
##Some say that dina d'malchusa dina only applies to laws related directly to the land (i.e. real estate).<ref>Rama C.M. 369:8. Rav Asher Weiss (Shut Minchas Asher 2:121:4:3) suggests that this works nicely with the opinion of the Ran quoted above that dina d'malchusa works because the land belongs to the king. However, according to the Rashbam quoted above that dina d'malchusa is a social contract, one could argue that there is no reason to distinguish between laws related to the land and other laws. However, he suggests that even according to the Ran, you don't have to distinguish as since the land belongs to him, he makes the rules</ref>
##Some say that dina d'malchusa dina applies to all financial matters<ref>Ra’aviah brought in Beis Yosef C.M. 369</ref>
##Some say that dina d'malchusa dina applies to all financial matters<ref>Ra’aviah brought in Beis Yosef C.M. 369</ref>
##Some say that dina d'malchusa dina applies to government legislation, but not to rulings of the secular court. <ref>Sema 369:21 trying to resolve a contradiction between Rama C.M. 369:8 where he says dina d'malchusa applies across the board and 369:11 where he limits it to things which are beneficial for the king or for the good of the people, but not about going to secular court</ref>
##Some say that dina d'malchusa dina applies to government legislation, but not to rulings of the secular court.<ref>Sema 369:21 trying to resolve a contradiction between Rama C.M. 369:8 where he says dina d'malchusa applies across the board and 369:11 where he limits it to things which are beneficial for the king or for the good of the people, but not about going to secular court</ref>
##Some say that dina d'malchusa dina applies to government legislation and rulings of the secular court as long as they are for the benefit of society, but personal matters are not under the jurisdiction of dina d'malchusa.<ref>Rav Moshe Feinstein (Igros Moshe C.M. 2:62) quotes the Sema's explanation and disagrees discussing bankruptcy laws. See Rav Asher Weiss (Parashas Chukas, B’inyan Dina D’malchusa Dina. Shut Minchas Asher 2:121:4:4) where  he applies dina d'malchusa to cases such as traffic laws, sanitation laws, and mandatory inoculation.</ref>
##Some say that dina d'malchusa dina applies to government legislation and rulings of the secular court as long as they are for the benefit of society, but personal matters are not under the jurisdiction of dina d'malchusa.<ref>Rav Moshe Feinstein (Igros Moshe C.M. 2:62) quotes the Sema's explanation and disagrees discussing bankruptcy laws. See Rav Asher Weiss (Parashas Chukas, B’inyan Dina D’malchusa Dina. Shut Minchas Asher 2:121:4:4) where  he applies dina d'malchusa to cases such as traffic laws, sanitation laws, and mandatory inoculation.</ref>
#Dina D'malchusa is ineffective in causing an Asmachta to be binding.<ref>Emek Hamishpat 1:31:18 citing Maharsham in Mishpat Shalom 207:15</ref>
#Dina D'malchusa is ineffective in causing an Asmachta to be binding.<ref>Emek Hamishpat 1:31:18 citing Maharsham in Mishpat Shalom 207:15</ref>
Line 30: Line 30:
#Dina d'malchuta dina applies to democracies such as the United States.<ref>Halachos of Other People's Money pg. 34. see note 71 where he quotes from Rav Yosef Eliyahu Henkin (Writings of Rav Yosef Eliyahu Henkin 96:8), Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (Maadanei Eretz 20:8), Rav Moshe Feinstein (Igrot Moshe CM 2:62), Shevet Halevi 2:58. This makes sense with the Rashbam and Rambam that dina d'malchusa is a social contract. One could argue that according to the Ran that the reason for dina d'malchusa is that the king owns the land, this shouldn't apply to a democracy. However, Pe’as Sadecha (165) writes that even according to the Ran, dina d’malchusa dina applies because in a democracy the country belongs to the people, and their elected representatives have the same power as a king to legislate.  </ref>
#Dina d'malchuta dina applies to democracies such as the United States.<ref>Halachos of Other People's Money pg. 34. see note 71 where he quotes from Rav Yosef Eliyahu Henkin (Writings of Rav Yosef Eliyahu Henkin 96:8), Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (Maadanei Eretz 20:8), Rav Moshe Feinstein (Igrot Moshe CM 2:62), Shevet Halevi 2:58. This makes sense with the Rashbam and Rambam that dina d'malchusa is a social contract. One could argue that according to the Ran that the reason for dina d'malchusa is that the king owns the land, this shouldn't apply to a democracy. However, Pe’as Sadecha (165) writes that even according to the Ran, dina d’malchusa dina applies because in a democracy the country belongs to the people, and their elected representatives have the same power as a king to legislate.  </ref>
#Some say that dina d'malchusa doesn't apply in Israel. However, most authorities rule that it does apply.<ref>Ran Nedarim 28a s.v. Bamoches writes that Dina Dmalchusa is based on the fact that the king owns the land and everyone has to abide by his law. However, in Israel where Hashem gave the land to the Jewish people, there is no Dina Dmalchuta. This is quoted in Darkei Moshe CM 369:3 and Gra 369:35. Emek Hamishpat 1:31:18 writes that in his opinion we follow the Ran. The Chasam Sofer C.M. 44 says that according to the Rashbam, dina d'malchusa still applies. The Rambam (Hilchos Gezeilah 5:11), Tur and Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 369:6) all rule against the Ran. This is also the opinion of Rav Asher Weiss (Parashas Chukas, B’inyan Dina D’malchusa Dina. Shut Minchas Asher 2:121).</ref>
#Some say that dina d'malchusa doesn't apply in Israel. However, most authorities rule that it does apply.<ref>Ran Nedarim 28a s.v. Bamoches writes that Dina Dmalchusa is based on the fact that the king owns the land and everyone has to abide by his law. However, in Israel where Hashem gave the land to the Jewish people, there is no Dina Dmalchuta. This is quoted in Darkei Moshe CM 369:3 and Gra 369:35. Emek Hamishpat 1:31:18 writes that in his opinion we follow the Ran. The Chasam Sofer C.M. 44 says that according to the Rashbam, dina d'malchusa still applies. The Rambam (Hilchos Gezeilah 5:11), Tur and Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 369:6) all rule against the Ran. This is also the opinion of Rav Asher Weiss (Parashas Chukas, B’inyan Dina D’malchusa Dina. Shut Minchas Asher 2:121).</ref>
==Paying Taxes==
# There is an obligation to pay a standardized tax.<ref>Mordechai, Gittin, Perek Hameivi Get 325; Rambam Hilchot Gezela 5:12, Shulchan Aruch Choshen Mishpat 369:7. Meiri Baba Kama 113b applies to a progressive tax system, even if that tax is not in keeping with halachic methods. See Mishneh Halachot 12:445 who is of the opinion that avoiding paying taxes is only considered hafkat halvato, not paying up a loan, and not stealing.</ref>
# There is no obligation to pay unfair taxes. An unfair tax is defined as a tax that is inconsistent, as it varied subjectively from person to person.<ref> Shulchan Aruch C.M. 369:6. Rama adds that a tax that is unique for Jews is considered a legitimate tax. </ref>
# One who does not pay taxes violates a Torah commandment of “lo tigzol” (Vayikra 19:13), as one is stealing from the government.<ref> Shulchan Aruch C.M. 369:6. Rabbi Menashe Klein writes that tax evasion is equivalent to hafkaat halvaa, withholding payment for debt, which is only prohibited in case of chillul hashem (Mishneh Halachot, Chelek 12, Siman 445). </ref>
# One who violates tax laws of a country with a legitimate system of taxes is obligated to pay the resulting fines.<ref> Shulchan Aruch Choshen Mishpat 369:7; Rambam, Hilchos Melachim 4:1, Hilchos Gezeilah 5:12 </ref>
# A Jew is permitted to work a tax agency and turn in Jews found guilty.<ref> Shevet Halevi, Chelek 2, Siman 18 </ref>
# It is prohibited to avoid paying taxes in a democracy such as the United States.<ref> Shu"t Igrot Moshe CM 2:29, Shu"t Shevet Halevi 2:58, [https://www.torahweb.org/torah/special/2005/rsch_taxes.html Rav Hershel Schachter]. see there where Rav Schachter writes that taxes nowadays would not only be binding because of dina dimalchuta dina. Paying taxes is also your obligation to the partnership because taxes are used to provide services to the citizens (fire, police, military, garbage, mail etc). All the people of the city, state, country have to contribute to provide for that. Thus, one who withholds his taxes is not only taking from the government. He is taking from the other citizens, which inevitably includes other Jews. </ref>
# According to some poskim, patronizing a Jewish merchant who cheats on his taxes violates the biblical prohibition of lifnei iver.<ref> [https://www.jlaw.com/Commentary/payingtaxes.html Eli Clark] quoted from Rav Hershel Schachter </ref>


==Examples==
==Examples==


#If a person or company went bankrupt they don’t have an enduring obligation to pay off their debt.<ref>Igrot Moshe CM 2:62, Halachos of Other People’s Money p. 34 fnt. 71. Rav Moshe explains that since the bankruptcy laws are for the betterment of society which the Rama 369:8 writes is binding.</ref>
#If a person or company went bankrupt they do not have an enduring obligation to pay off their debt because bankruptcy laws are established and reasonable laws of the government.<ref>Igrot Moshe CM 2:62, Halachos of Other People’s Money p. 34 fnt. 71. Rav Moshe explains that since the bankruptcy laws are for the betterment of society which the Rama 369:8 writes is binding.</ref>
#If there’s a civil law to hand in a lost object that is found to a government official one must oblige because of Dina Dmalchuta Dina.<ref>Rama 259:7, Pitchei Choshen Aveidah 2:22</ref> See [https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/lost_property common law on Cornell.edu].
#If there’s a civil law to hand in a lost object that is found to a government official one must oblige because of Dina Dmalchuta Dina.<ref>Rama 259:7, Pitchei Choshen Aveidah 2:22</ref> See [https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/lost_property common law on Cornell.edu].
#Some write that if a person has a contract with a penalty that is an asmachta even though it is binding in a secular court dina dmalchuta doesn’t make it binding between two Jews.<ref>Emek Mishpat v. 1 p. 260 writes that one should not assume that dina dmalchuta obligates a person to pay a contractual penalty. He explains that they are an asmachta and dina dmalchuta doesn't apply in Israel (Ran Nedarim 28a, Darkei Moshe 369:3, Gra 369:35). Also, he adds that Mishpat Shalom 207:15 writes that dina dmaclhuta doesn't make an asmachta binding. Also, Chazon Ish CM likkutim 16:11 writes that dina dmalchuta isn't applicable for a contractual penalty since dina dmalchuta doesn’t apply between two Jews.</ref>
#Some write that if a person has a contract with a penalty that is an asmachta even though it is binding in a secular court dina dmalchuta doesn’t make it binding between two Jews.<ref>Emek Mishpat v. 1 p. 260 writes that one should not assume that dina dmalchuta obligates a person to pay a contractual penalty. He explains that they are an asmachta and dina dmalchuta doesn't apply in Israel (Ran Nedarim 28a, Darkei Moshe 369:3, Gra 369:35). Also, he adds that Mishpat Shalom 207:15 writes that dina dmaclhuta doesn't make an asmachta binding. Also, Chazon Ish CM likkutim 16:11 writes that dina dmalchuta isn't applicable for a contractual penalty since dina dmalchuta doesn’t apply between two Jews.</ref>
Anonymous user