Alan Sokobin
mary Index of the Committee on Jewish Law and Standards” in The Rabbini cal Assembly, New York , 1994. There are halakhically developed responsa dealing with such diverse subjects as biomedical issues, conversion, intermarriage, marriage and divorce, mourning and funerals, kashrut, women, as well as those dealing with holiday and festival observance.
J. David Bleich , Contemporary Halakhic Problems, 1977-1999(a work of 6 volumes); Responsa of Rav Moshe Feinstein : Translation and Commentary, David Tendler (tr .), New York , 1998; Crossroads: Halacha and the Modern World, Zomet, Gush Etzion, 1987.
M. Baba Metzia 7:11
Ketubot 56a
It is explicitly mentioned four times. Nedarim 28a; Gittin 10b; Baba Kama 113a; Baba Basra 54b-55a
Menachem Elon , Jewish Law: History, Sources, Principles, Jewish Publication Society , 1994, vol. 1, p. 59 1994. The legal rationale given by various later authorities for the source of the binding force of the king's law was that this binding force flows from an agreement between the people and the king, under which the people yield up to the king their prerogatives in all matters falling within the king's law, while the king obligates himself to preserve and
protect the people. This rationale applies to every form of government, and
certainly to one chosen by the people.”
Ibid., 72.
“In theory the Jewish legal system[during the middle ages] was regarded as self-sufficient, but in practice the Jewish courts and jurists(i.e., the halakhists) did not entirely disregard legal rulings and enactments emanating from non Jewish sources.” Jacob Katz , Exclusiveness and Tolerance, 1961, p. 53.
See State ex rel. Fowler v. Moore, 46 Nev. 65, 207(1922).
“An act of Congress providing that the power of every territory shall extend to all rightful subjects of legislation not inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States has been construed as operating as a delegation of authority to control marriages.” Simms v. Simms, 175 U.S. 162(1899) Examples abound of court cases, which assert the power of a legislature to issue a license to officiate at a marriage to an officer designated by statute. See Brewer v. Kingsberry, 69 Ga. 754(1882). There were, as well, cases asserting that the officiant must be in full compliance with the authorizing statute. See People v. Schoonmaker, 119 Mich. 242(1917).
“The state has the sovereign power to regulate marriages.” Henderson v. Henderson, 199 Md. 449(1952).
“Marriage is a civil contract entered into by a male and a female not under such disability as to render the ceremony void...the marriage must be duly solemnized. Besides the agreement of the parties there must be a license and a ceremony performed by an authorized person before witness...without a license and a ceremony there is no marriage.” People v. MacDonald, 24 Cal. App. 2d 702(1938).
“Rabbis should not officiate without a state license, for when they perform kiddushin they are considered to act as officers of the state who give the union standing in civil law.” Rabbi's Manual, Central Conference of American Rabbis, New York , 1988, p. 246
M. Baba Metziah 1:5.