Napoleon's Sanhedrin and the Halakhah 27

In Aragon we have the curious example of a ruler demanding that his court decide an issue between two Jews in accordance with Jewish law, as the bet din had been unable to reach a timely decision.” Still later Joseph Caro provided an interesting twist by making a distinction between a ketubah issued in a Christian land where the King made no such demands and a Moslem land where such documents were subject to royal decrees.” Concerns were also expressed about the fairness of the courts and whether they were influenced by bribes.”

The most bitterly debated issue was the appointment of communal leaders through royal decree. Did dina demalkhuta dina permit this? As we have seen, this had occurred without question throughout the talmudic period in Persia . The Exilarch was a royal appointee; this had continued to be accepted without question through the entire Gaonic period. As mentioned earlier, the rabbinic academies vied with each other over the right to propose candidates and for a long time Pumpedita was dominant; however, the ruler had the power to ignore such nominations and proceed on his own.” The appointment of Isaac b. Sheshet as the leader of the Algerian community without consultation led to a bitter struggle which was only resolved after his appointment was modified by the king."

The Sephardic community unto modern times, as far as one can ascertain through a brief review of the responsa, continued along this path and accepted a rather wide ranging interpretation of dina demalkhuta dina. This comported with the reality that Jews preferred to settle their fiscal affairs in the general courts and usually trusted them. Appointments made by the ruler with consultation were accepted even if reluctantly. One may well say that dina demalkhuta dina became customary and so was accepted into the halakhah as occurred with other customs too, despite its lack of any biblical authority.”