“The Law of the Land and Jewish Law” 73
citations in the Talmud were incidental and indicated that this was not a major issue. Each citation dealt with the authority of the governmental tax or customs collectors, or the authority of governmental documents issued by a non-Jewish court or witnessed by Gentiles. Alternatives were presented in every instance and dina demalkhuta dina was never fully discussed and played virtually no role in the enormous mass of talmudic legal material. The primary expression of the ruler’s power and this principle lay in his appointment of the exilarch, the head of the Jewish community; he was often appointed through consultation with the head of one of the talmudic academies, but this was a courtesy or a wise political gesture, not mandatory and the appointment itself lay outside the jurisdiction of the rabbinic authorities.
We do not know the reason for Samuel's statement or why he had to make explicit what had been implicit and de facto for many centuries. We may speculate that he sought to ingratiate himself with the ruler through this effort. Perhaps with the border tensions between the Parthian and Romans he felt the need for a declaration of loyalty. He might have sought to make the implicit more a part of the Jewish legal system, so that it could be discussed internally as Bial* has suggested. None of the contemporary or later decissors provided a reason for Samuel’s enactment and merely stated that he was particularly close to the Persian ruler. Although this was correct, it has little bearing on a rationale for his statement.5 As neither the Talmud nor Parthian documents shed light on this matter, speculation is futile.
The statement in Gittin came from Samuel himself, while the others quoted him. In Gittin, the problem discussed was a mishnaic statement that validated documents issued by a Gentile court and witnessed by Gentiles. The only exceptions were documents of divorce and manumission of slaves. Samuel's statement agreed with this while others felt that some documents were also excluded. Samuel's statement also meant that earlier mishnaic statements that permitted the evasion of the king’s taxes, were now rejected 7 this had also troubled rabbinic authorities of the Talmud and they concluded that the Mishnah referred only to an unauthorized tax collector® or one who did not proceed in a legal fashion.’ Rabba reported three rules that Were given to him by Ukbas ben Nehemia, the exilarch, in which he further clarified the meaning of Samuel's rule as applying to documents that recognized the transfer of property, but not