Assisting the Guilty 43

10.

n,

12. 13.

14.

15, 16.

17. 18. 19,

1981), citing Rabbi Shelomo Luria, Hokhmat Shelomo, commenting on Niddah 61a; and Rabbi Akiva Eiger on Niddah 61a[emphasis mine].

. This is advanced by Michael J. Broyde , The Pursuit of Justice and Jewish Law

(New York : 1996) p. 94, citing Rabbi Yaakov Ettlinger, Arukh Laner, com­menting on Niddah 61a, Rabbi Yaakov Emden, She’elat Ya'avetz 2:9, and Rabbi Moshe Shreiber, Hatam Sofer 6:14.

- See, e.g., Nix v. Whiteside, 475 U.S. 157(1986)(a United States Supreme Court

decision ruling that though a lawyer may, as most states require that he must, inform the court of perjury by his client there are circumstances in which one has the“right” to present a false case in order to compel the gov­ernment to prove its accusations beyond a reasonable doubt).

. The Gemara’s reference is to the Roman province of Asia , Asia Proconsularis,

to which Jews fled in order to avoid public appointment under the authority of the Roman Empire. Elijah’s statement thus seems to suggest a rebuke along the lines of:“Your father had the courage to resist the pressure of secular authority; if you were a worthy son, you would show the same character.” David J. Bleich ,“Jewish Law and the State’s Authority to Punish Crime,” 12 Cardozo Law Review, 829, 830(1991).

Hershel Schachter “Dina Di’Malchusa Dina: Secular Law as a Religious Oblig­ation,” pp. 103, 118.

People v. Drelich, 506 N.Y.S. 2d 746, 124 A.D. 2d 441(2d App. Div. 1986). There are a number of authorities whose inferences suggest such an approach: Maimonides , Hilchot Rotzeah 2:4; Tosafot to Sanhedrin 20b; see gen­erally David J. Bleich ,“Jewish Law and the State’s Authority to Punish Crime,” 12 Cardozo L aw Review 829, 840-44(1991).

J. David Bleich ,“Jewish Law and the State’s Authority to Punish Crime,” 12 Cardoza Law Review 829, 849(1991).

Ibid., 849-50.

These principles are applied in a famous commentary of Rabbi Moses Isser­les(the Rama) which rules that a Jew who engages in counterfeiting or the like may be turned over to civil authorities for punishment. Rama comment­ing on Shulkhan Arukh, Hoshen Mishpat 388:12, 425:1.

Rashi commenting on Gittin 9b(s.v. dinim ).

Michael J. Broyde , The Pursuit of Justice and Jewish Law (New York : 1996), p. 87. Maimonides , Hilchot Melachim 10:11(shelo yishacheit ha-olam) suggests a nat­ural law theory of Jewish obligation to the secular world which would justify a very expansive reading of the otherwise routinely constricted understand­ing of dina de-malkhuta dina in Jewish law. The full quote from Maimonides ’ Mishneh Torah is as follows:“The Beit Din of Israel is obligated to establish judges for these resident aliens to judge them in accordance with these laws in order that the world not be destroyed. If the Beit Din sees fit to appoint judges from among them, they may do so; and if they see fit to appoint Jewish judges for them, they may do so.”[emphasis mine]

See generally Gil Graff,“ Separation of Church and State: Dina de’Malchuta Dina,” Jewish Law , 1750-1848(University, Alabama: 1985). The standard Tal­ mudic references to dina demalchuta dina are found in Gittin 10b; Baba Kamma 113a; Baba Batra 54b; and Nedarim 28a.

The argument advanced, has been that state statutes which mandate clergy disclosure and breach of confidentiality in cases of child abuse should