"...The Tosafot wrote that the concept of 'dina de-malchuta dina' applies exclusively to non-Jewish Kings; since the land is his and he can say that if one doesn't obey his command, he will expel them from the land; however, Jewish kings may not because all Jews are partners in the Land of Israel"

(11) When does the statement that a customs-collector is considered to be a highwayman apply? When the customs collector is a gentile, is self-appointed, or was appointed by the king but is given unlimited jurisdiction and takes whatever he wants and leaves whatever he wants.
If, however, the customs-collector was appointed by the king to take a third, a fourth or any fixed amount of the subjects' goods or their value, the customs collector appoints a Jew to collect this sum for the king, and it is known that this person is faithful and does not add anything beyond what the king decreed, this person is not considered a robber. For the law established by the king is binding law. Indeed, anyone who does not pay this tax transgresses, for he is taking what is due the king. This applies whether the king is Jewish or gentile.

(6) Paragraph 6- When is it true that a tax collector is like a bandit? Where the tax collector is a gentile, he created the tax on his own or the tax is from the king but has no set amount and he can take what he wants. If the tax was set by the king and was a set amount, however- even if the king instructed that the Jew give more than the gentile, it is still considered a set amount for each person- and the king appointed a Jewish collector to collect for him and this person is known as trustworthy and would not add anything to what the king instructed, he is not presumed to be a robber because the law of the government is the law. Moreover, one who evades the tax violates “do not steal” because he has stolen the king’s gift, whether the king was Jewish or a gentile. Similarly, if a Jew acquired the tax from the king, if one evades the tax he is robbing the Jew who acquired the rights to it. There are those who say that even where it is known that the Jew takes more than the set amount, one is still prohibited from evading the set amount, because it is like he is robbing a robber, which is prohibited. If a gentile acquired the tax, however, one is permitted to evade because it is like evading a loan which is permissible where there is no desecration of God’s name. There are those who say that even if the tax collector is Jewish, if he did not acquire for himself and just collects on behalf of the king, although one is prohibited from evading because of the government law, if a person were to evade the collector cannot force him to give because is like evading a loan, which is permissible. If there is any concern that he is afraid of the king, however, he is certainly able to force him to give.

Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: For what reason was Abner punished by being killed? It is because he should have protested to Saul about the killing of the priests of Nob (see I Samuel 22:17–19), but he did not protest.

MISHNA: ... Nor may a cow go out with the skin of a hedgehog [kupar], nor with a strap between its horns. The mishna relates that Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya’s cow would go out on Shabbat with a strap between its horns, contrary to the will of the Sages.

...

The Gemara asks: Did Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya have only one cow? Didn’t Rav say, and some say that Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya would tithe from his herds 12,000 calves each and every year? There were 120, 000 calves born in his herds annually. There is no way, then, to speak of the cow of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya.
The Gemara answers: It was taught in the Tosefta: The cow was not his; rather, it was his neighbor’s. And because he did not protest her conduct and tell her that doing so is prohibited the cow was called by his name to his discredit, as if it were his.

It was related that Rav, and Rabbi Ḥanina, and Rabbi Yoḥanan, and Rav Ḥaviva taught the statement cited below. The Gemara comments: Throughout the order of Moed, wherever this pair of Sages is mentioned, exchange Rabbi Yoḥanan and insert Rabbi Yonatan in his place. In any event, they said: Anyone who had the capability to effectively protest the sinful conduct of the members of his household and did not protest, he himself is apprehended for the sins of the members of his household and punished. If he is in a position to protest the sinful conduct of the people of his town, and he fails to do so, he is apprehended for the sins of the people of his town. If he is in a position to protest the sinful conduct of the whole world, and he fails to do so, he is apprehended for the sins of the whole world.
Rav Pappa said: And the members of the household of the Exilarch were apprehended and punished for the sins of the whole world. Because their authority extends across the entire Jewish world, it is in their hands to ensure that nobody commit a transgression.
As indicated by that which Rabbi Ḥanina said: What is the meaning of that which is written: “The Lord will enter into judgment with the Elders of His people and its princes, saying: It is you who have eaten up the vineyard; the robbery of the poor is in your houses” (Isaiah 3:14)? The question arises: If the princes sinned by committing robbery, what did the Elders, i.e., the Sages of that generation, do that was considered a sin? Rather, say: God will enter into judgment with the Elders because they did not protest the sinful conduct of the princes.

...

With regard to the issue of reprimand, it was related that Rabbi Zeira said to Rabbi Simon: Let the Master reprimand the members of the house of the Exilarch, as Rabbi Simon had some influence over them. Rabbi Simon said to him: They will not accept reprimand from me. Rabbi Zeira said to him: Let my master reprimand them even if they do not accept it.

...