The Law of the Land is the Law (dina d'malchuta dina)
by Michael G. Holzman
The Jewish legal dictum of dina d'malchuta dina^1 (the law of the land is the law) posits a general obligation for Jews to adhere to the legal statutes of the governing authority, provided these laws do not mandate the transgression of fundamental Jewish religious precepts.
In the context of the United States, a democratic republic predicated on the active participation of its citizenry, the implications of dina d'malchuta dina extend beyond mere legal compliance, undergirding a theological and communal logic for civic engagement. In the American experience, the idea of dina d'malchuta dina opened the door for civic participation to become an expression of moral vision and spiritual purpose.
Dina d'malchuta dina originally emerged as a pragmatic and religiously grounded approach to navigating life as a disempowered minority within non-Jewish polities. Rabbinic authorities (see BT Bava Batra 54b)^2, recognizing the necessity of a stable civil order for the flourishing of Jewish communities, developed a theological understanding that legitimate governing authorities possessed a degree of divine sanction in maintaining order. While a full analysis of the parameters and exceptions to the dictum is beyond scope here, I believe the underlying logic of the principle – that civil society depends upon, and is shaped by, the rule of law – became embedded in Jewish morality and culture.
In the American context, the valence of dina d’malchuta dina has shifted in three key ways. First, Jews are no longer insecure outsiders who feel a unique obligation to maintain the law of the local sovereign. Second, the primacy of the individual in modernity, especially central to the American psyche, has made the dictum incumbent on each person as part of the citizenry, rather than a principle observed collectively by the Jewish community. Third, the health and legitimacy of American democracy are intrinsically linked to the active involvement of its citizens in shaping public policy and contributing to the common good. This participatory ethos stands in contrast to more passive models of subjecthood, emphasizing the agency and responsibility of individuals within the political sphere. The rabbinic dictum had to evolve from an act of deference to the majority power to one of stewardship of the whole.
The nexus between dina d'malchuta dina and American civic participation becomes apparent when considering the underlying spirit of responsible integration and contribution to the societal fabric. The dictum’s core tenet of respecting and adhering to the law of the land resonates with the foundational requirements of civic engagement in a democratic system. American Jews, drawing upon this tradition, are not merely obligated to obey law but are also, by extension, encouraged to shape it. This means a Jew conscious of dina is pointed toward the responsibilities of governance as an extension of the principle.
The Jewish principle also flourishes in uniquely American soil. Tocqueville famously observed the pivotal role of local governance and voluntary associations in the success of the American experiment. He argued that the strength of American democracy lay not solely in its federal structure but in the dense network of civic organizations and the active involvement of citizens at the local level. These local engagements, ranging from town meetings to philanthropic endeavors, serve as crucial training grounds for civic virtue, develop vested interest in the well-being of community, cultivate the skills of deliberation and collective action, and mitigate the potential for both governmental overreach and individual apathy.
American Jews, informed by the nexus between dina and America’s tradition of local governance participation, are not only expected to abide by regulations and laws but also to engage in the very processes that create and modify those policies. The numerous Jewish organizations and institutions across the United States serve as tangible examples of this intersection. The overwhelming plethora of Jewish institutions, especially those governed by participants, become training grounds for the development of governance muscles. Synagogues particularly function as community hubs that encourage governance and leadership among their members. Hillels also have an outsized role in developing young leaders as organizers of Jewish life on their campuses and members of a network of emerging leaders in the larger community.
A renewed understanding of dina as not only a feature of halachic reasoning, but also a core principle of Judaism’s approach to civics would recast governance behavior as expressions of spiritual observance. Individuals who join committees, serve as officers of organizations, or participate in any of the many other activities often considered outside the scope of religiosity would see the elements of holiness embedded in behaviors normally considered mundane. Consider the treasurer of a synagogue board who views this role not only, or even primarily, as communal governance, but as a spiritually meaningful act that sustains, fortifies, and preserves the Jewish people.
Similar motivations can be ascribed to civic behavior. Jews who express their Jewishness through advocacy, social justice, community organizing, jury service, military service, running for electoral office, writing letters to the editor, leading protests, or other types of civic engagement in the larger American political system would recognize these actions as positive mitzvot not only for the specific policy agenda under consideration, but also ensuring Judaism’s priority of a stable civil society. Thus Judaism’s theological basis for dina d’malchuta dina can serve as a bulwark against some of the more toxic, divisive, and destructive elements of American political culture. If we are serious about maintaining “the law of the land is the law” then we have to reject political behaviors that disregard or undermine our system of law. This would include punishing protestors who break the law even when we agree with the protest, something considered widely unpopular by criminology researchers at the University of Rhode Island.^3 Americans seem to reject enforcing the law but only against a favored political agenda, something forbidden by dina d’malchuta dina.
Furthermore, the historical experience of Jewish communities adhering to dina d'malchuta dina across diverse political systems has arguably cultivated a nuanced understanding of the delicate balance between maintaining communal identity and contributing to the broader society. This Jewish historical consciousness can enrich American civic life by bringing to the fore a long-standing tradition of engaging with governance writ large for the whole society, while preserving distinct cultural and religious values for a sub-group’s internal society.
Particularly because dina d’malchuta dina emerged as a survival mechanism and theological principle of a disempowered minority group, it can elevate the moral basis for participation in democratic governance. The dictum’s role in the halachic system is important, but even more powerful is the consciousness it generates in Jews as members of the American polity. This begins in the cultivation of leaders in local communities, extends to civic action with the political system, and offers a model for the role of collective communities in the larger landscape of American society.
^1 https://www.sefaria.org/sheets/678362?lang=bi
^2 https://www.sefaria.org/Bava_Batra.54b.3?lang=bi
^3 Jason R. Silver and Luzi Shi, "Punishing Protesters on the 'Other Side': Partisan Bias in Public Support for Repressive and Punitive Responses to Protest Violence," Socius: Sociological Research for a Dynamic World 9 (2023): 1–16, https://doi.org/10.1177/23780231231182908.
