Yeshiva
Beit Midrash
- Sections
- Chemdat Yamim
- P'ninat Mishpat
Case: The plaintiff (=pl) sued the defendant (=def) in secular court. He sent a letter of claim, which made it necessary for def to hire a lawyer and write a letter of defense, but they have not yet had a hearing. Plnow says that he wants to go to beit din and claims that he sued in secular court just so that def would have to respond and could not continue to be elusive. Def says that he would have been happy to go tobeit din, but since he already paid money in preparation for the secular court adjudication, he is now unwilling. He also suspects that pl changed his mind because he is afraid he would lose there, and def refuses to change venues on those grounds.
Ruling: [Last time, we saw that whether the idea that one who initiated adjudication in secular court and lost cannot demand a retrial in beit din is based on accepting the ruling or on penalty, it does not apply at the earliest stages of adjudication.]
P'ninat Mishpat (835)
Various Rabbis
388 - Going to Beit Din After Suing in Secular Court – part I
389 - Going to Beit Din After Suing in Secular Court – part II
390 - Switching Accountants Due to Slow Results
Load More
The Divrei Chayim (II:CM 1) said, regarding a similar case, that the plaintiff is required to pay expenses before continuing on to beit din. However, it is possible that this was only in a case when the plaintiff turned to beit din because he thought he would lose in the non-Jewish court and because the damage was very direct.
In our case, def has claimed that the reason pl wants to return tobeit din is that he believes he will lose in secular court. There is logic to penalize pl in such a case and refuse the request. However, def has not provided support, let alone proof, for that contention. In general also, when there is a doubt whether a penalty is forthcoming, we do not levy one (see Nachal Yitzchak, CM 25).
There is also a machloket haposkim (see S’ma 26:7 and Tumim 26:3) regarding a case where one already received a reward in secular court adjudication that he did not initiate, with some saying he is required to go to beit din to confirm he deserves the money. This is one more reason to prefer that the adjudication be transferred at this point tobeit din.
Therefore, pl is right to correct his path and return to beit din even if def wants to continue in secular court. (As usual, def may choose thebeit din which will adjudicate.)
P'ninat Mishpat P'ninat Mishpat: Multiple Agreements and Parties – part IV
based on final ruling of 80082 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
P'ninat Mishpat P'ninat Mishpat: Undoing a Problematic Partnership – part I
based on ruling 84061 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
P'ninat Mishpat P'NINAT MISHPAT: A Mess of Loans, Repayments and Grievances – part II
based on ruling 83033 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
Rabbis in Midrash
Lessons
fast navigation
Various Events FOR WHOM NOT TO VOTE
Rav Zvi Yehuda Kook stressed that Israeli politics is G-dly, so I have no problem answering this common question on a Torani blog. Also, Free-Will is a G-d-given right and obligation, to "destine one's fate" (R. Soloveichik, Kol Dodi Dofek, 67), so I obviously don't tell others how to vote. But once not a few (especially young) have already asked, a couple of personal words from experience and thoughts from chazal & Rav Kook which may be of help to others, mainly for whom NOT to vote.
P'ninat Mishpat Fallout from Failure to Install Elevator – part II
based on ruling 85007 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
