In the opinion of some, for the exiled Jews their submission to gentile rulers was viewed more as a "pragmatic recognition of brute force" than anything else.
[6] Yet it is surely a mark of something extraordinary in the message of Jeremiah that his advice goes beyond mere submission to necessity and requests prayer for the "peace (שָׁלוֹם)" of those among whom the exiles find themselves.
By definition, the term would also apply to the king's ability to expropriate lands under the laws of eminent domain for the building of new roads for his army during war.
[15][16] Not only is he permitted to build a road for his army, but according to Shemuel, in virtue of the powers vested in the government or in the king, he has the authority to cut down another's date-palm trees and to make from them bridges, while persons making use of the bridge need not suspect that the original owners have not despaired of retrieving their lost property and are still in possession of the timbers, seeing that, in fact, they have despaired of retrieving what was formerly theirs.
[17] Included in the general scope of the term's definition are the legal deeds (conveyances) and documents held in non-Jewish courts of law and registries, which are viewed as valid.
[23][22] While the majority of rabbis hold that Dina d'malkhuta dina applies to, both, Jewish and non-Jewish governments,[24][25] Rabbi Nissim, who cites the Tosafists, dissented, saying that with respect to land-tax levied by a government on its subjects, such as in the case of the Persian king who was entitled to levy a land-tax upon his subjects, and those who defaulted in payment could have their property confiscated, or either mortgaged by mortgagers until payment has been made on the property (Baba Bathra 55a, Rashi s.v.
[6] The Talmud (Baba Metzia 28b) relates a story about a point in time when the Persian government made it a law that any money found by one of its citizens automatically becomes property of the state.
Rabbi Ammi and a colleague of his found lost money which its owners had, ostensibly, despaired of ever retrieving.
Therefore, in total reliance on this oral teaching, he gave instruction not to relinquish the money they had found, nor give it to the Government.
In the argument supporting the dina's applicability to the modern Jewish state, Tenbitsky, a commentator on this subject, presents the principle of niḥa lehū (Hebrew: ניחא להו), the Jewish community's acquiescence to governmental power for the sake of public order.
[28] Since rabbinic courts are unable to bypass the secular-law of the state, nor can they cancel the biblical laws, they circumvent the issue by encouraging the head of the family to write out a Last Will before his death, in which case, the father is able to bequeath a hefty portion of the inheritance of his estate to his eldest son.