Dina Demalkota
Hello Rabbi!
Are things that are common for the majority of the public to break the law prohibited because of “Dina Demalchuta” (for example: not paying tax on a small, one-time job or driving slightly faster than the speed limit)? Does this depend on the original dispute regarding the meaning of Dina Demalchuta?
Thanks in advance.
I have already written here in the past that I think not. Dina Demalkhuta defined what a citizen who is not loyal to the law is obligated to do. And what a reasonable and normative citizen overlaps with, can be overlapped with. I do not see what this could depend on.
Shalom Rabbi.
A. Thank you very much for the answer and sorry that I did not find the things that were written in the past.
B. My intention was that according to the Rabbi and his party - that the obligation comes from the fact that the land belongs to the king - we are obliged to explain all the laws, but according to the Rishonim who believe that the obligation stems from the consent of the public, we can be exempted from what the public did not accept. (Although according to the Rabbi in any case there is no law of kingship in Israel).
I think that the suspension of ownership of the land is an anachronism, a relic of a bygone era. But even if you insist on seeing it as a system relevant to our time, that does not mean that all instructions must be obeyed. What the reasonable man does is what I am obliged to do. The question is not what is the source of the king's authority but what is its scope.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
