appointed by God , his laws had the same force as divine laws.” Those who held the theory of social contract felt that the popular acceptance of the ruler and his coinage meant that his laws also had to be accepted.”
The Sephardic Expansion of the Principle
In Islamic and Christian Spain the principle soon went beyond the authority of tax collectors and documents issued by a non-Jewish court, but was broadened to include a series of other matters. Jews often preferred to use non-Jewish courts to settle their affairs and quarrels with other Jews and with Gentiles. We should remember the Talmudic and Gaonic objections to this,®” but the later ruling of R. Tam was generally accepted. He opposed a Jew forcing another into the secular courts, but if both agreed to use them, then it was permissible.
A further development in the early Middle Ages led to dina demalkhuta dina becoming part of Jewish law and not merely law for the Jewish population. Rabbenu Tam did this by utilizing the principle of hefker bet din hefker.”> Slightly earlier the same effect was brought to the principle through inclusion in the code of Maimonides. ®
In twelfth century Spain the transfer of any property(sale, gift, will, etc.) through a Gentile court was recognized. This was so despite the fact that other anihoriiss considered wills and ketubot outside the realm of Gentile courts®® and excluded them from dina demalkhuta dina; Later others also considered such documents within the power of the ruler and that they were valid if written in the language of the land®” and even when the martiags was done under Gentile auspices, they were not considered invalid.®® So we see a case in which Isaac b. Sheshet(Barfat) invalidated a Gentile marriage, but upheld the ketubah issued with it;* sometimes Gentile practices were accepted into the Jewish court system.