THE JERUSALEM INSTITUTE OF JEWISH LAW 
Rabbi Emanuel Quint, Dean

Lesson # 301 • Dina D’Malchuta Dina
Abiding by the Laws of the Land

We’re back to “Dina”. The last lesson on this topic (TT 681) concluded by saying that the next lesson (on Dina) would have some examples of the Doctrine of Dina D”Malchuta Dina.

We shall begin with individual subjects to which the Doctrine applies

Real Property
There is unanimity that Dina D’Malchuta Dina applies to land within the country. Thus a government may permit or prohibit people crossing over its territory; or that all those entering the country pay a tax; or that one may not farm until he pays a land tax, or that the government may confiscate the land, or that the government officials may enter upon the land of individuals in furtherance of government functions, or almost any things dealing with land. However, as explained by Rabbeinu Yona Gerondi (Spain; 1200-1263) this applies only to the government’s control of the land but not as to the ways the land is acquired or sold which is still controlled by halacha, with exceptions, depending upon the custom of the community as to how land is conveyed.

On Kristalknacht November 9/10, 1938, a pogrom was launched by the Nazis against the Jews of Germany. Without provocation or warning, the Germans sent hordes of soldiers and civilians into the streets of every city or community where Jews were living. They had orders to murder, plunder, destroy and maim anything Jewish. Approximately 100 Jews were murdered and 30,000 adult Jews were arrested and sent to three major concentration camps - Dachau, Buchenwald, and Sachsnhausen, where up to 1000 died. About 1395 synagogues were destroyed, thousands of Jewish homes were attacked, and 7500 shops were ransacked and destroyed. During Kristalknacht, a Vienna synagogue was destroyed by the Nazis. Nowadays, the neighborhood where the synagogue stood is no longer Jewish. The land where the synagogue stood cannot be sold under Austrian law, but can be rented for a parking lot. May the synagogue so lease it? R. Ovadya Yosef answered that since it cannot be sold under Austrian law, it was binding on the community under Dina D’Malchuta Dina. Furthermore the synagogue lost its holiness when it was destroyed by heathens. R. Yosef advised the Jewish community to get the rent payment in advance. (See Yabi’a Omer, volume 8, Orach Chayim response 16.)

Reuven held a promissory note that was due from Levi and was a lien on Levi’s real estate. When Levi defaulted to pay the amount due under the note, Reuven fore- closed the lien by having the civil authorities sell Levi’s real estate. Reuven purchased the real estate at the sale. The foreclosure sale followed all of the laws regarding such sales and there were proper announcements made in the public square inviting one and all to purchase the real estate. Shimon, who had a prior note against Levi according to halacha also had a prior lien. When Levi thereafter failed to repay his loan to Shimon, Shimon brought a lawsuit in Beth Din to have Reuven transfer the Levi real estate to Shimon, who had the prior note. R. Asher, held that since Reuven had complied with all local laws regarding foreclosure sale including giving public announcements to all those who had any interest in Levi’s real estate to come forward and since Shimon failed to come forward, he is precluded from now asserting his priority of lien. This was a case where the local laws of foreclosure were part of Dina D’Malchuta Dina. (See R. Asher b. Yehiel, Germany Spain, 1250-1327, Rosh 18:16) The holding of R. Asher is quoted by his son R. Yaakov Tur, Germany, Spain 1270-1340, Tur Hoshen haMishpat 104 (3).

A well known rabbi owned and dwelt in a two-family dwelling in New York City that was governed under the Rent Control Laws of New York. The other apartment was leased to a tenant. The rabbi wished to evict the tenant so that the rabbi’s son could move in there, a situation governed by the rent control laws of the state of New York. Were the parties halachically bound by the rent-control laws? R. Feinstein was asked to decide this question. He advised both the rabbi and the tenant that Dina D’Malchuta Dina was applicable and they must abide by these laws, especially since the lease for the apartment was signed after the rent-control laws were already in effect, although the law stated that it also applied to prior leases. (R. Moshe Feinstein, Russia, United States; 1895-1986; Igress Moshe, Hoshen haMishpat 1:72).

The question of observing Sh’mita (Sabbatical Year) is a real question for observant Jews in the State of Israel. The laws can be followed by letting the fields lie fallow of the entire year; it can be observed by the average farmer selling his land to a non-Jew, a procedure that is arranged by the Chief Rabbinate. The question arises by those farmers who wish to rely on this procedure: How can they sell land in the State of Israel to a Gentile, a transaction forbidden by the Torah. (See Vayikra 25:10) This question arose early in the history of the Jews who were returning to live in what was then Palestine under Turkish control before the establishment of the State of Israel. Could they sell the land to the Gentiles? Rabbi Avraham Kook, the first chief rabbi of Palestine, was asked in 1909 to rule on the question and he held that the land could be sold since under Dina D’Malchuta Dina the land did not belong technically to the Jews who were working the land, but to the foreign powers.

The governmental authorities, in order to widen a street, expropriated land belonging to commercial owners along the street. When the street widening was completed, it was found that not all of the expropriated land was used and the government put such unused parcels up for sale. The question presented is: Did the original owners have any claim to the land. It was held by R. Berlin that since the land was expropriated under Dina D’Malchuta Dina, the original owners had no claim to the land. (R. Nafali Zvi Berlin; Russia, Poland; 1817-1893; Meshiv Davar 3:11).

IYH in the next lesson there will be other applications of Dina D’Malchuta Dina.

The subject matter of this lesson is more fully discussed in volume IX chapter 369 of A Restatement of Rabbinic Civil Law by E. Quint. Copies of all volumes can be purchased via email: orders@gefenpublishing.com and via website: www.israelbooks.com and at local Judaica bookstores. Questions to quint@inter.net.il