Napoleon's Sanhedrin and the Halakhah 29

Sofer accepting it, albeit reluctantly.®> On the other hand in the Ashkenazic lands communal autonomy nevertheless prevailed.”

In Poland , Lithuania , as well as some other lands, the communities began to cooperate by the middle of the sixteenth century; they formed national tribunals, organized synods and governing councils. This was encouraged by the rulers as it simplified the collection of taxes. In turn they provided a higher degree of autonomy for the Jewish community and so dina demalkhuta dina played a smaller role than elsewhere for several centuries.*

In the main, Samuel’s principle was limited to civil law outside the realm of family law as codified by Maimonides .” The boundaries became vaguer from the seventeenth century onward, so we find purely Gentile witnesses to a death, or the state’s declaration of death for a soldier, accepted for purposes of releasing an agunah; similarly dina demalkhuta dina was also invoked in the commercial aspects of the redemption of the first born, the sale of leavened items, Gentile wine, etc

The Gentile governments were often not trusted, so we find contradicting decisions and interpretations of dina demalkhuta dina, so it was possible for a scholar to decide that it was not permitted to hide a Jews sought by the government, but one could advise him and presumably not turn him in when one knew where he was.’

The parameters provided by earlier times were interpreted restrictively in the Ashkenazic lands until the nature of the State changed. The ancient stability began to disappear by the middle of the eighteenth century. Jews along with many in the rest of the population became restless and sought to eliminate old disabilities, but this also meant taking on new responsibilities which came with such privileges. The boundaries of dina demalkhuta dina needed to be altered. Jewish corporate existence in the Ashkenazic lands meant that Jews governed