Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat Siman 3

Siman 3

Presented here for study, not as a practical ruling. The Shulchan Aruch rules by Sephardi custom, the Rema's glosses by Ashkenazi custom, and the Kitzur follows Ashkenazi custom. For a practical question, ask your rabbi.

א בכמה דינין דנין. ובו ד סעיפים: אין ב"ד פחות מג' וכל שלשה נקראים ב"ד אפילו הדיוטות (דאי אפשר דלית בהו חד דיודע סברות בדינים אבל אי לית בהו חד דידע פסילי לדון) (טור בשם אביו הרא"ש ריש סנהדרין) ומ"מ יכולי' לקבל הטענות ולשלחם לפני מורה (מהר"ם פאדוו"ה סי' מ"ג) והם דנים את האדם בעל כרחו אם הנתבע מסרב לירד לדין או שאינו רוצה לדון עם התובע בעירו אבל אם רוצה לדון עמו בעירו אלא שאינו חפץ בג' שבירר התובע אז זה בורר לו א' וזה בורר לו אחד: הגה כדלקמן סי' י"ג ונ"ל דוקא בדיינים שאינם קבועים אבל אם דיינים קבועים בעיר לא יוכל לומר לא אדון לפניהם אלא בזה בורר וכן נוהגין בעירנו וע"ל סי' כ"ב סוף סעיף א':
1 A Court of Law must consist of not less than three [Judges] and every [group of] three [Judges] is called a Court of Law even if they be laymen. For it is impossible that there should not be among them [ at least ] one who has a knowledge of logical inferences in [ civil ] laws. However, if there is not among them [ at least ] one [ who has such knowledge ], they are disqualified to judge. Nevertheless, they may receive the pleas [ of the contesting parties ] and forward them to one who is qualified to render legal decisions. They may try the defendant against his will if the latter declines to come down before Court, or he is not willing to attend the Court with the plaintiff in his home town. But if he is willing to attend the Court with him in his home town, only that he is not pleased with the three [Judges] whom the plaintiff has chosen, — then [the law is that] each [litigant] chooses one [Judge and the two Judges together choose a third]. Rema: As stated infra § 13. It seems to me [ that this applies ] only to Judges who are not permanent, but if there are permanent Judges in town he cannot say, 'I will attend Court in their presence only on [ the condition that ] each [ litigant ] chooses [ one Judge and the two Judges together choose a third ]'. Thus is the accepted custom in our town., infra § 22, par. 1 end.
ב פחות משלשה אין דיניהם דין אפי' לא טעו אא"כ קבלום בעלי דינים או שהוא מומחה לרבים: (ובזמן הזה אין דנין דין מומחה לרבים שידון ביחידי בע"כ של אדם) (מהרי"ו סי' קמ"ז) כל שאינם שלשה ולא קיבלום עליהם ואינם מומחים לרבים (טור) אפי' הם סמוכים בא"י הודאה שמודים בפניהם כמי שמודה חוץ לב"ד ויכולים להחליף טענותיהם שטענו בפניהם הכופר בפניהם ואח"כ באו עדים לא הוחזק כפרן אבל השלשה אע"פ שאינם סמוכים ההודאה בפניהם כהודאה בב"ד וכן בכופר ואח"כ באו עדים הוחזק כפרן ואינו יכול לחזור ולטעון:
2 [If] less than three [Judges tried a monetary case] their decision is not binding, even [if] they did not render an erroneous decision, unless the litigants accepted them [to abide by their ruling], or [in the case of] one who is a recognized Mumḥeh. Nowadays we do not conduct proceedings of adjudication [ of monetary cases by ] a recognized Mumḥeh so that he judge [ not ] alone against the will of an individual. Every [group] that does not consist of three [Judges], and [ the litigants ] did not accept them [ to abide by their decision ] and they are not recognized Mumḥin, even [if] they are duly ordained in the Land of Israel, — [the law is that] an admission of indebtedness made in their presence is regarded as an admission made outside the Court and they [the litigants] may alter their [original] pleas which they put forth before them [the Judges]. One who denies aught before them [the Judges] and subsequently witnesses arrived [and refuted him], is not presumed to be a liar. However, regarding the [Court which consists of] three [Judges], although they are not duly ordained, — [the law is that] the admission of indebtedness made in their presence is regarded as one made before a competent Court of Law. Likewise, in [the case of] one who denies [aught] and subsequently witnesses came [and refuted him], — he is presumed to be a liar and cannot amend his pleas.
ג אע"פ שיחיד מומחה לרבים מותר לו לדון יחידי מצות חכמים שיושיב עמו אחרים:
3 Although one who is a recognized Mumḥeh is permitted to judge alone, [nevertheless], it is a commandment of the Sages that he appoint others to sit with him [in judgment].
ד אע"פ שב"ד של שלשה ב"ד שלם הוא כל זמן שהם רבים הרי זה משובח ומוטב שיחתוך הדין בי"א מבעשרה וצריך שיהיו כל היושבים בב"ד ת"ח וראוים ואסור לאדם חכם שישב בדין עד שידע עם מי יושב שמא ישב עם אנשים שאינם הגונים ונמצא בכלל קשר בוגדים לא בכלל ב"ד מי שאינו מומחה ולא קבלוהו עליו בעלי דינים אע"פ שנטל רשות מראש הגולה אין דינו דין אפי' לא טעה וכל א' מבעלי דינים אם רצה חוזר ודן בפני ב"ד: הגה רשות שנותן המלך עכו"ם בזמן הזה אינו כלום ומיהו אם קבלוהו הקהל ע"פ כתב המלך יכול לדין (טור) וי"א דאם גמיר וסביר מהני ליה רשות המלך (ריב"ש סי' רע"א) או השר הממונה בעירו דזהו בכלל דינא דמלכותא להושיב דיינים ושופטים מי שירצה ומ"מ מי שעושה זה בלא רשות הקהל מצער הצבור ועתיד ליתן את הדין (תשובת רשב"א סי' תרל"ז):
4 Although a Court of Law of three is considered complete, — [yet], whenever they [the Judges] are many it is regarded as praiseworthy and it is better that the law be decided by eleven than by ten [Judges]. It is required that all who sit in the Court of Law be scholars and worthy [of their office]. It is forbidden for a wise man to sit in judgment until he knows with whom he sits lest he sit with people who are not suitable and is [then] found to be included in a council of conspirators and not in a Court of Law. One who is not an authorized Judge [ Mumḥeh ] and the litigants did not accept him upon themselves, although he obtained authorization from the Exilarch, his decision is not binding, even if he did not err [in his ruling], and [consequently] each one of the litigants may, if he so desires, retract and plead [his case anew] before a [competent] Court of Law. Rema: Authorization which a ruler nowadays grants [ to an individual Judge ] is of no consequence. However, if the community accepted him in accord with the written decree of the ruler, he may act as Judge. And some say that if he [ the Judge ] is versed in law and possesses reasoning power, — the ruler's authorization has legal effect for him, or [ likewise, the authorization of ] the officer who was appointed in his town [ has legal effect for him ], — for this comes under the category of the law of the State, [ viz.,], to appoint [ as ] Judges and Magistrates whomever he desires. Nevertheless, whosoever does this without the permission of the community, annoys the general public and is destined to give an account [ of his actions in the world to come ].
Previous ChapterNext Chapter