“The Law of the Land and Jewish Law” 83

In Augsburg in 1871 those assembled reiterated that civil marriage would be accepted, but an additional religious cere­mony was encouraged. The assembly in Philadelphia in 1869 declared that only civil divorce was necessary as is purely civil matter. The law of the land prevailed in cases of doubtful death. Pittsburgh in 1885, Columbus in 1935, and Pittsburgh in 1999 added nothing on the subject and did not mention dina demalkhuta dina. In an effort to add a religious element to divorce and to be egalitarian, various suggestions were made in the nineteenth and twentieth century. This led to the Seder Peri­dah, now observed by some Reform congregations.®

As we look at the development of Reform halakhah in the twentieth century, we find dina demalkuta dina was implied frequently, but rarely cited directly.” In the Solomon B. Freehof volumes, Reform Jewish Practice, and the parallel but less widely known volume by David Polish and Jacob Doppelt“A Guide for Reform Jews,” no need was felt to cite dina dem­lakhuta dina as both dealt with the practices of the synagogue and home. Even when it could have been discussed, it was avoided and other issues connected with the matter at hand were emphasized. In the question of the remarriage of a Jew and a non-Jew after a civil ceremony, Freehof might have dis­cussed it. Instead the brief discussion focused on whether it was possible to conduct a religious ceremony after the couple had already cohabited.”! If we examine the responsa written under the auspices of the Responsa Committee, the five hundred writ­ten by Solomon B. Freehof , five hundred by me, and those of Gunther Plaut and Mark Washofsky, we see dina demalkhuta dina appears only peripherally with rare exceptions. The role of the state was taken for granted and not discussed. So marriages performed by lay people or cantors were discussed without ref­erence to the state. Only when a very specific issue was at stake, did this change, as in the question of whether a wedding might take place without a license, addressed to Freehof in 1974.7 In a question about defective material used in construction dina demalhuta dina was mentioned,” as in a responsum on the gar­Nishing of wages.” Julius Rappaport in his responsum on the use of wine for ritual purposes during the Prohibition dealt with all the ceremonies in which wine is used, but did not mention dina demalkhuta dina.”