What are some of the basic applications of Dina D'malchusa Dina (the law of a kingdom is a law)? Are there exceptions when one does not need to follow the law of the land?

Dina D'malchusa Dina Source and What it Applies to

The Talmud states:[1] "Shmuel said, dina d'malchusa dina" (the law of the kingdom is the law). Rava said: know [that this rule is true] that they cut down palm trees [without the consent of the owners] and construct bridges and we [may] cross over them."

The Rashbam[2] explains the concept of dina d'malchusa dina to mean that all the taxes and rules of the kingship become law for all people who live in the land on this condition to follow its rules. Thus, the kingship's laws also become halachicly binding as well. The Rashba and the Ran in Nedarim[3] write in the name of Tosfos that the rule of dina d'malchusa dina regarding taxation applies to non-Jewish kings in the diaspora, for the land belongs to them and they may say to the citizens that if they do not pay the taxes that they will expel them from the land.

The Maharik also qualifies the law of dina d'malchusa dina is only where the laws are basically common place and typical by regular kingdoms, and not just merely laws that some dictator merely decided to impose on the people.[4] 

Some poskim hold that dina d'malchusa dina is a Rabbinical law,[5] while others argue that it is has Biblical status.[6]

Is a Democracy also Counted as Dina D'malchusa Dina?

Although the term dina d'malchusa dina literally means 'law of a kingdom is the law' it is fair to argue that it includes also elected democratic governments as well that fully govern the citizens. Tosfos to Avoda Zara 10b points out that in Rome they swore not to have a king but rather to have three hundred leading adviser rulers.  A plethora of poskim indeed hold that democratic elected governments are included in the law of dina d'malchusa dina.[7]

When Dina D'malchusa Dina Conflicts with Torah Laws

Although the rule of dina d'malchusa dina, when they are fair laws, is a halachic binding obligation, thus one must keep local government laws as part and parcel also as a halachic religious duty.[8] However, there is halachic debate as to how far reaching the rules of dina d'malchus dina apply. However, dina d'malchusa dina cannot override Biblical or Rabbinical prohibitions, for if that would be the case, the whole Torah would be abolished![9]

Laws that are pertinent between two Jews, such as inheritance laws, we follow the rulings of the Torah, as dina d'malchusa dina does not affect these Torah laws.[10] However, in some cases, we would look at the law of the land to see how a business dispute would normally be considered. On all doubts, one should seek guidance from a competent Rav.

Interestingly, even though when it comes to returning a lost object, when there is yi'ush (despair) one need not return the item. However, if the law of the land does require us to return it, the Rema writes that we should follow the law of the land, out of respect for the malchus (kingship).[11] 

Rav Yosef Dov Halevi Soloveitchik quoted from his uncle who commented that under the old communist regime, there was no legitimate dina d'malchusa dina since they were completely corrupt.[12] 

Dina D'malchusa Dina in Modern Democracy Takeaway

We should be appreciative of democracies such as the United States that protect are personal natural right to "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness". Certainly, we should follow all its laws either due to the rule of dina d'malchusa dina or simply because we owe it to our country which was called by great giants such as Rav Moshe Feinstein " a malchus shel chesed" (a kingship of kindness).

The Lubavitcher Rebbe was very particular with respecting the laws of the land even when it challenged his shlichus and mitzvah campaigns. At the same time, the Rebbe many times encouraged efforts to be made to have the law of the land recognize various campaigns as legal and lawful.[13] Rabbi Raskin a shliach in Morocco wanted to print Tehillim and Tanya in a pocket-size edition, however, in Morocco this was not legal as it is a Muslim country. The Rebbe responded[14]: "If it is legal according to the law in that place, it is very proper."

Certainly, we can do all the good things a Jew needs to do while also keeping the laws of the land and make a big kiddush Hashem at the same time.

[1] Bava Kama 113b.

[2] Rashbam to Bava Basra 54b.

[3] See Rashba and Ran to Nedarim 28a.

[4] See Maharik (shoresh 66).

[5] Beis Shmuel (Even Haezer 28:3).

[6] Avnei Miluim (Even Haezer 28:2) who argues with the Beis Shmuel. So is the view of the Chasam Sofer (Yoreh Deah 314) that dina d'malchusa dina is a Biblical law. The Chasam Sofer refers to sale of an animal to a non-Jew, where the animal would give birth to a first born. If the non-Jew acquires it, then the first born that will be born will not have the status of kedushas bechor (holiness of the first born). The non-Jew gave a down payment and just a handshake without also performing meshicha (pulling it into his domain). Normally, a kinyan (acquirement) would also need meshicha, but the non-Jew insisted that a handshake is sufficient as it is the formal way of commerce in the local country and is recognized by the government as a formal way to acquire. The Chasam Sofer considered the handshake as grounds for a bonifide kinyan since it would be recognized by the government (dina d'malchusa dina), even to avoid a potential otherwise Biblical concern.

[7] See Pa'as Sadecha (165); Mishpat Kohen (144:14); Yaskil Avdi (vol. 6 Choshen Mishpat 28:2); Yechava Da'at 5:63. The above sources also rule that people must pay taxes and follow the rules of dina d'malchusa dina in Israel and other government democracies.

[8] See Gittin 10b. Rema (Choshen Mishpat 369:8).

[9] See Shach (Choshen Mishpat 73:39). See also Shulchan Aruch (Admur Hazaken Hilchos Gzeila 5).

[10] See Rema (Choshen Mishpat 369:11).

[11] See Rema (Choshen Mishpat 259:7).

[12] See Nefesh Harav pg. 269.

[13] See for example Igros Kodesh vol. 32 epistle 12,043. Another example was to fight to legalize public menorah lightings in city squares.

[14] Igros Kodesh vol. 31 epistle 11,852.