“The Law of the Land and Jewish Law” 79
particular to Jews. * As significant for our purposes, he understood that the modern state derived its authority from all of its inhabitants including Jews . Furthermore, only the state had the right to coerce, which in Judaism had been accomplished through the herem; it was now eliminated and with it the chief power of the rabbinic court. The major effect of this charter would take a while to be felt; it was seen as progress by the Jewish communities as a number of restrictions were lifted.
A more difficult situation arose through Joseph II of Austria ’s Ehepatent(1783) which provided state regulation for marriages.* The rabbinic authorities needed to deal with this immediately. The best way to face this new demand was through a takanah which obligated the communities involved to observe the secular law. Dina demalkhuta dina was not mentioned as this was a matter of marriage. The process of Emancipation went further in France even under the old regime; a commission to look into the status of Jews was established in 1788 by Louis XVI ; in 1791 the National Assembly provided equal rights to Jews , but contemporary political events made that meaningless.
The status of the Jewish community was forcefully raised by Napoleon through the Assembly of Jewish Notables(the Assembly) and the Sanhedrin which he called. Napoleon had imposed restrictions on both the Catholic and Protestant churches and made them subservient through regulating the appointment of religious leaders, the system of education, and church governance; he wanted to proceed similarly with the Jewish community; the process began through the Assembly which gathered on 10 July, 1806. Napoleon provided twelve questions which the assembled delegates were to answer. He insisted that the group begin its deliberations on a shabbat, an initial challenge. The delegates understood that they needed to please Napoleon and to achieve the rights which the Jews of France desired. On the other hand they did not wish to violate tradition or to anger the rabbinic authorities in the East European lands untouched by modernity. The general principle was to indicate the validity of dina demalkhuta dina in all matters where it did not specifically contradict Jewish obligations. In the area of marriage and divorce, dina demalkhuta dina was carefully cited and extended into the field of family law. Other citations were also used to create the necessary compliance. As a get was not considered valid if any bond between husband and wife remained and as the lack