19

There are a few Halachas that apply to a Jew's relationship with his country. For example, Dina Dmalchusa, another is not to rebel (although its Halachic strength is disputed, all agree that under normal conditions, one should keep those three oaths.)

What defines a country vis-a-vis these laws?

For example, if there were religious Jews in the United States before the revolution, at what point would the Jews be permitted (or more accurately, obligated) to support the United States? Would Jews be allowed to support the Confederacy? On the other hand, were Jews permitted to join the Union if they came from the south?

On one hand, maybe the Confederacy is considered an independent country invaded by the Union (as they viewed themselves). On the other, maybe the South were rebels, so it would be forbidden to help them.

At which point would Jews be obligated to obey their laws? At which point did "United States law" trump "British law" vis-a-vis Dina Dmalchusa?

EDIT

A further question (similar to this one):

At which point does a group of people become a country. For example, if one lived in a neighborhood which was run by a Mafia, would he be obligated to obey the laws of that Mafia (for example, if he got away with not paying "protection money", would he still be violating "Dina Dmalchusa")?

Improve this question
6
  • My brother told me that he heard live from Rav Dawid Yosef Shelit"a that if the government is corrupt then it would disqualify them.
    – Hacham Gabriel
    Commented Jan 6, 2012 at 2:18
  • 4
    @Hacham Gabriel, in some cases that is such a subjective criterion as to be almost meaningless.
    – Seth J
    Commented Jan 6, 2012 at 2:46
  • @SethJ True...It doesn't really tell us much.
    – Hacham Gabriel
    Commented Jan 6, 2012 at 2:51
  • Related: judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/2277.
    – msh210 ♦
    Commented Jan 6, 2012 at 8:01
  • @SethJ right, all countries are corrupt to some extent. it's a question of degree, not substance. The scriptures themselves tell about corruption issues that plagued Israel for almost all of its existence.
    – Robert Columbia
    Commented Feb 20, 2019 at 13:42

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
7

A consensus developed among the Gaonim, and it appears in the Rambam, that "show me the money" is one criterion in determining legitimacy. If you're not sure if this uprising is a real government, have it issue currency and see if people use it. They do? It's a real government. (As for the American Revolution: someone remind me please about the phrase "not worth a Continental...")

While others differed, Rabbi Moshe Feinstein felt that even Communist Russia in its early years was treated as a legitimate government, albeit a seriously flawed one.

I'd asked a posek about Iraq under Saddam Hussein, he said no halacha wouldn't call that legitimate, a government that is as far from honesty as can be. I asked exactly where the line was drawn, the posek said he couldn't say, but Saddam was definitely on the other side!

Improve this answer
1
  • 3
    I am confused, is it about currency or is it not? The first half says yes, the second half says not at all.
    – avi
    Commented Jan 8, 2012 at 7:03
4

I can't see it applying any way other than with the "Facts on the ground". Who runs the police force, and who enforces the laws? If there is a conflict, you have to follow both of them.

Edit:

It does not matter if you live in an Empire, country, a state, a city-state, a kingdom, or a fiefdom. What matters is that you follow the laws of the Judges and officers of the land you live in. If the judges and officers of the place in which you live, are rebelling against some larger empire, that will not matter to you. (unless you feel strongly about the empire)

Improve this answer
0

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .