Dina d'malkhuta dina (alternative spelling: dina de-malkhuta dina; , or "the law of the land is the law") is a principle in Jewish religious law that the civil law of the country is binding upon the Jewish inhabitants of that country, and, in certain cases, is to be preferred to Jewish law. The law of the land and its binding on Jewish citizens pertains, however, exclusively to monetary matters. The concept of dina de-malkhuta dina is similar to the concept of conflict of laws in other legal systems. It appears in at least twenty-five places in the Shulchan Arukh.Emanuel B. Quint A Restatement of Rabbinic Civil Law
The principle of dina d'malkhuta dina means that, for Jews, obedience to the civil law of the country in which they live is viewed as a religiously mandated obligation and disobedience is a transgression, according to Jewish law. This general principle is subject, however, to the qualifications that the government enacting the law must be one which is recognized by Jewish law as having legitimacy; the law must apply equitably to all the inhabitants, Jewish and non-Jewish alike; and the law must not contravene the spirit of the laws derived from the Torah even if a particular regulation may be contrary to a provision of Jewish law. Whenever a state law infringes upon a prohibition () outlined in the Torah, or else infringes upon a permitted thing () in the Torah, or even upon Jewish custom, the laws of Dina d'malkhuta dina do not apply. (reprinted from 1922 and 1938 editions of the Hebrew Publishing Co., New York)
Origins Origins of this idea come from Jeremiah's letter to the Babylonian exiles: "Seek the peace of the city to which I have exiled you and pray to the Lord on its behalf; for in the peace thereof you shall have peace" (Jeremiah 29:7). In the opinion of some, for the exiled Jews their submission to gentile rulers was viewed more as a "pragmatic recognition of brute force" than anything else. Yet it is surely a mark of something extraordinary in the message of Jeremiah that his advice goes beyond mere submission to necessity and requests prayer for the "peace ()" of those among whom the exiles find themselves.
Others suggest that the authority of kings to enact binding laws upon the people and to exact imposts and duties stem from the biblical episode about crowning a king (1 Samuel 8:1118).
The first to cite a teaching under the authority of Dina d'malkhuta dina, and who applied it to Jews who live under the laws of foreign lands, was Mar Samuel (ca. 177–257), a Talmudic sage from Babylonia.
Rabbi Hanina, who had been the Deputy High Priest before the Roman conquest of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Second Temple is cited in tractate Avot () as saying: "Pray for the welfare of the government, for were it not for fear of it, people would swallow one another alive."
Within the halakha and in the Talmud The dina etc. (= "law of the land") was the only extraneous element that was incorporated into the halakhic law structure, the foundation of jurisdictional autonomy of Jewish communities, and applies to raising taxes, duties and imposts, on the condition that the exacter is fully authorized and does not exact more than what he is entitled to exact,Babylonian Talmud (Baba Kama 113a). Cf. Rabbi Isaac Alfasi, Baba Kama 40; Maimonides, Mishne Torah (Hil. Gezelot ve-Avedah 5:11–18); Shulhan Arukh (Hoshen Mishpat § 369:6).Babylonian Talmud (Nedarim 28a) as also to a government's right to determine ways of commerce.Whereby, all decisions made touching monetary matters are legal and binding. Cf. Maimonides, Mishne Torah (Hil. Zekhiyya u'matanah 1:15) In cases of abuse, it was permitted to evade customs (import tax). By definition, the term would also apply to the king's ability to expropriate lands under the laws of eminent domain for the building of new roads for his army during war.Maimonides, Mishne Torah (Hil. Melakhim, ch. 4), see the commentaries there, especially the Commentary of Radbaz.Cf. , who wrote: "The Mishnah (Sanhedrin, chapter 2) treats on the laws governing the High Priest (ibid. 2:1), and in those matters touching the king (ibid. 2:2–5). One of these oral teachings (ibid. 2:4) treats on the issue of war that is led by a king: He may send forth [the people] to a war waged of free choice by the decision of the court of one and seventy. He may break through [the private domain of any man] to make himself a road and none may protest against him. The king's road has no prescribed measure. All the people may plunder [the effects of the enemy] and they give it to him (i.e. the king), and he first takes his portion... The expressions, 'the king's road,' as also, 'he may break through to make himself a road,' do not merely mean the right to make inroads in territories belonging to private individuals, but rather that he has the authority to inflict damage to private property for the good and successful prosecution of the war, and that, mind you, without limitation" (END QUOTE). Not only is he permitted to build a road for his army, but according to Shemuel, in virtue of the powers vested in the government or in the king, he has the authority to cut down another's date-palm trees and to make from them bridges, while persons making use of the bridge need not suspect that the original owners have not despaired of retrieving their lost property and are still in possession of the timbers, seeing that, in fact, they have despaired of retrieving what was formerly theirs.Babylonian Talmud, Baba Kama 113b; Maimonides, Mishne Torah (Hil. Gezelah we-Avedah 5:14) Included in the general scope of the term's definition are the legal deeds (conveyances) and documents held in non-Jewish courts of law and registries, which are viewed as valid.Babylonian Talmud (Gittin 10b; Mishnah Gittin 1:5) The statement dina de-malkhuta dina, appears four times in the Babylonian Talmud and is a nod to Jewish acquiescence to Gentile authority, as also to Jewish secular authority.Marcus Jastrow, Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi and the Midrashic Literature (2nd edition), New York 2006, p. 301
The term dina etc. (= "law of the land") not only applies to an Israelite or Jewish government, but also to non-Jewish governments where Jews are concerned and where the law of the government must be respected as the law of the Torah., s.v. Part III, responsum no. 533 (reprinted in Israel, n.d.) The Talmud (Baba Batra 55a) notes that, in the case of the Persian government and its laws, title to land can be acquired by usucaption (occupancy) after forty years of occupancy by a farmer, during which years the farmer had not met up with any counter-claim or protest, although in Jewish law one gains title to property by usucaption after working it for only three years from date to date.Babylonian Talmud (Baba Bathra 55a, Rashi, s.v. In this case, Jews living in Persia were obligated to honor the law of the land. The novelty of the Persian law allows for the Persian farmer who gained possession of the property to sell the property to others, and even if it should later be learned that the property was stolen from its original owner (who had not protested his right to the property all these years), the person who buys the property—if confronted by its rightful owner who now lays claim to the property and demands that restitution be made—is not required to relinquish the property under Persian law, something which stands contrary to Jewish law (when the rightful owner has not despaired of retrieving his lost property), although valid by virtue of Dina d'malkhuta dina. Only in such places where Jewish law prevails would the original owner, in such cases, regain access to his stolen property, seeing that stolen property cannot be acquired by way of usucaption. Land purchased by a Jew from a non-Jew, the non-Jew must authenticate its purchase by showing a legal deed of title to the property.Babylonian Talmud (Baba Bathra 35b, note 13)
Application of the dina to Jews While the majority of rabbis hold that Dina d'malkhuta dina applies to, both, Jewish and non-Jewish governments,Cf. , s.v. Nedarim 3:3, Nedarim 28a, s.v. כבר ביארנו. Quote: "We have already explained in multiple places that Dina d'malkhuta dina does not apply except in those matters which the king makes a fixed law by way of affecting the general populace, rather than [simply] innovating something that applies to an individual, in a specific manner. All, therefore, which he has done by way of affecting the general populace becomes a bona fide law, and it is forbidden to ignore it, or to circumvent it, as one who engages completely in theft. As for this matter, there is no difference between the kings of Israel and the kings of the nations of the world." Rabbi Nissim, who cites the Tosafists, dissented, saying that with respect to land-tax levied by a government on its subjects, such as in the case of the Persian king who was entitled to levy a land-tax upon his subjects, and those who defaulted in payment could have their property confiscated, or either mortgaged by mortgagers until payment has been made on the property (Baba Bathra 55a, Rashi s.v. ), the rule of Dina d'malkhuta dina applies in their case, that is, only to non-Jewish kingdoms (forms of government) outside of the Land of Israel, but does not apply to Jewish kings and governors within the Land of Israel.Babylonian Talmud (Nedarim 28a, s.v. במוכס העומד מאליו). He brings a reasonable explanation for this ruling, stating that Gentile kings are able to expel Jews from their country if they refuse to pay their taxes, whereas a Jewish king or governor could never legally expel a Jew from the Land of Israel, since all of the people of Israel are equal partners in the Land. The debate in Nedarim 28a, however, is more broad and stems from a teaching in the Mishnah (Nedarim 3:3) and where it states that it is permitted to evade a tax-collector by saying unto him that the fruits cannot be legally taxed since he had already vowed to designate them as Terumah unto the priestly stock, even though, in actuality, he made no such vow nor designation. Shemuel (the amora) and Rabbi Yannai, who explained the sense of the same Mishnah, stated that the Mishnah refers to a case where the tax-collector was exacting more than what the law demanded of him, or was an impostor, in which case it was permissible to evade him by means of deception, especially since if he refused to pay the tax-collector he put himself in immediate danger (Jerusalem Talmud, ibid.). According to Maimonides, the government of any country has the authority to levy a land-tax upon its subjects, and those who default in its payment could have their property confiscated from them, or either mortgaged by mortgagers until payment has been made., cf. Baba Bathra 55a, Rashi s.v.
The rabbis required "minimal justice" from non-Jewish rulers, as such for the dina to be accepted there were two stipulations. These stipulations were that laws had to be both explicit and universal, to safeguard Jews from gentile laws that could potentially be used against them.
A sovereign non-Jewish government, although given powers to levy taxes, etc., is not authorized to appoint a rabbi over the Jewish community without the approval of the majority of that community, unless the rabbi were erudite and possessed a retentive memory, as well as had exceptional reasoning faculties with acute penetration (Responsa of Rabbi Isaac ben Sheshet, responsum no. 271). If, however, a Jewish person appoints a rabbi over the community, without receiving prior approval from that community, such actions are regretful and he will be required to give an account for his actions (Responsa of Rabbi Shlomo ibn Aderet, responsum no. 637).
Conditions of dina in civil and religious matters