It was taken for granted that the civil government and courts have the power, are just, and must be obeyed. This is true whether the discussion was about some one lost at sea,” collecting pledges made to the synagogue,” or dealing honestly with the Social Security.”® During previous ages of mistrust of the secular government, the responses might have been different, or at least somewhat guarded. Different times zones and their implication for Jewish observances were accepted without hesitation.” When questions dealt with an area about which the state had not made up its mind, as, for example, the marriage of transsexuals,® the responsas stated that they would ultimately depend upon the state’s position.
In the case of Jews testifying against fellow Jews in a civil suit, dina demalkhuta dina was actually cited and discussed. In this responsum, which summarized the instances in which dina demalkhuta dina applied, Freehof stated that“it certainly is incontrovertible that the laws of Medicare, of income tax, and of Social Security are the decisions of a just government applying equally to all citizens. Therefore it is our religious duty to obey those laws. Those who violate these laws violate a mandate of Jewish law thereby and are not to be protected.”®! Freehof then goes further and stated that the witnesses were not merely invited to testify, but ordered to do, so they are moser b’ones and must testify to protect themselves. In addition these individuals pose a danger to the Jewish community and one should testify against them on those grounds(Shulhan Arukh, Hoshen Mishpat, 388.11).%2 A similar line of reasoning was followed in questions about Social Security, Alzheimer’s care,®® and other government programs such as support for homes for the aged.® The sancta of the civil authorities were recognized so that Jews would participate in national celebrations.®
In matters of marriage and divorce, the power of the state's laws was acknowledged# as in the discussion of consanguinity in 1978. Concubinage, which existed in Judaism in various periods, could only be discussed in a historical and theoretical context as it is illegal in North America . When the Responsd Committee was asked about the morality of bringing a suit in civil court, the issue was the morality of the action, not whether it was sanctioned by halakhah and should, perhaps be taken a bet din.%”
on wt in DI am OT TE at RE TT RY AE pee
— la 1