Abiding by Civilian Law: Difference between revisions
From Halachipedia
m (Text replacement - " Biblical" to " biblical") |
|||
| Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
#There is a discussion as to which laws one is obligated to follow the dina d'malchusa: | #There is a discussion as to which laws one is obligated to follow the dina d'malchusa: | ||
##Some say that dina d'malchusa dina only applies to laws that benefit the king directly.<ref>Shulchan Aruch C.M. 68:1. Yachava Daat 4:65 quotes that the Rif, Rambam, Maggid Mishna, Baal Hatrumot, and Maharik agree with this distinction, while the Ramban, Meiri, and Ran disagree. These opinions depend on the two answers of the gemara in Gittin 10b. Rashba responsa 6:254 agrees with the Rambam, but see Yachava Daat where he quotes 4 other places that the Rashba discusses this topic and in 3 of them agrees with the Ramban.</ref> Others disagree.<ref>Rama C.M. 68:1 cited by Yachava Daat 4:65</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 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. Rashba 6:254 writes that dina d'malchusa only applies to laws that make sense for the entire kingdom and not a new law that the king enacted. Yachava Daat 4:65 quotes this from the Meiri b"k 113b.</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> | ||
#We do not say Dina D'Malchusa when it contradicts the laws of the Torah.<ref>Shach C.M. 73:39. Rav Asher Weiss Minchas Asher 2:122 explains that this means we don't follow the dina d'malchusa when it contradicts with Torah values. Chazon Ish C.M. Likutim 16:1 questions this as all cases are against Torah Law. Teshuva MiAhava 1:117 discusses a case when there is a law that only certain rabbis can officiate at weddings and a different rabbi officiates. He concludes that the marriage is binding, but he did the wrong thing as dina d'malchusa is binding. Similarly, Rav Asher Weiss (Shut Michas Asher 2:123) discusses building a succah on your property when it is against zoning laws. He says although you have fulfilled your mitzvah of succah, you violated dina d'malchusa unless this is something the police know about and don't enforce</ref> | #We do not say Dina D'Malchusa when it contradicts the laws of the Torah.<ref>Shach C.M. 73:39. Yachava Daat 4:65 also quotes this from the Meiri b"k 113b, Ramban quoting the Raavad, Levush 369:11, and Maharimat 1:7. Rav Asher Weiss (Minchas Asher 2:122) explains that this means we don't follow the dina d'malchusa when it contradicts with Torah values. Chazon Ish C.M. Likutim 16:1 questions this as all cases are against Torah Law. Teshuva MiAhava 1:117 discusses a case when there is a law that only certain rabbis can officiate at weddings and a different rabbi officiates. He concludes that the marriage is binding, but he did the wrong thing as dina d'malchusa is binding. Similarly, Rav Asher Weiss (Shut Michas Asher 2:123) discusses building a succah on your property when it is against zoning laws. He says although you have fulfilled your mitzvah of succah, you violated dina d'malchusa unless this is something the police know about and don't enforce.</ref> | ||
==Where Does it Apply== | ==Where Does it Apply== | ||
