Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mi Yodeya is a question and answer site for those who base their lives on Jewish law and tradition and anyone interested in learning more. It's 100% free, no registration required.

When a particular non-Jewish law is inconvenient, and no harm seems to be done to anyone by ignoring (breaking) it... is one required still to keep it? If so, or if not, why? This question specifically relates to situations where Jewish law would actually allow the action, but would not actually give any good reason for overstepping the government law.

I just want to understand how this is thought about in Jewish law and philosophy.

share|improve this question
related judaism.stackexchange.com/q/25789/759 –  Double AA Aug 5 '13 at 10:19
The comment from Rabbi Belsky in the answer there says at one point, "But for pedestrians, I don't think the government is that concerned." So the thought is that the government's laws need to be followed unless they aren't serious laws anyway? Is that a commonly accepted perspective? –  Annelise Aug 5 '13 at 11:22
PS I ask that as someone who does cross the road in the wrong place or at the red pedestrian light if the road is totally quiet... it seems ridiculous not to... but in terms of the principle I just wrote about, I don't know about it :S –  Annelise Aug 5 '13 at 12:06
@DoubleAA, Is that question fundamentally about jaywalking, or is it a common example of the principle asked about here? In other words, dupe? –  Seth J Aug 5 '13 at 13:54
Seth J, it is both. I think there is too much additional information/discussion there to simply focus on this question. –  Annelise Aug 5 '13 at 14:07
show 1 more comment

Know someone who can answer? Share a link to this question via email, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook.

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.