those that actually made the transfer and to various situations of taxation or royal confiscation.” It applied to the ruler and his agents in matters of civil law mainly in matters of property exchange, taxation and eminent domain. There was disagreement from talmudic times onward about whether the statement applied to documents that actually transferred property or that only validated such a transfer through a Gentile court, and were witnessed by Gentiles." The question was settled to include only the latter.
Gaonic Period
There was also no full discussion of the principle in the Gaonic period(650-1050 C.E.) which marked the change from Sassanian to Arab rule. The ultimate Jewish authority was the exilarch, appointed by the non-Jewish ruler; he was respected and feared by the Gaonim.'? For many centuries the exilarch appointed the Gaonim, though this was reversed by the tenth century.’® The exilarchs through most of this period held a high position at court, were all powerful within the Jewish community and were extremely wealthy." They did not need to discuss the basis of Samuel's principle. They were royal appointees who executed the mandates of the government which provided internal autonomy for the Jewish community.
During the later portion of Arab rule the Gaonim became powerful and because of the nature of the Gentile rulers dina demalkhuta dina was largely limited to matters of taxation. They excommunicated those Jews who used non-Jewish courts and made only rare exceptions.’ In some instances they were stricter than the talmudic statement of the principle and refused to permit a transfer of property made through a non-Jewish court, witnessed by non-Jews .
The limited Gaonic discussions of the statement provided some philosophical basis for it. The scholars defended it through the theory of the divine right of kings; as the Jewish or non-Jew ish ruler was 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.'®