THE JERUSALEM INSTITUTE OF JEWISH LAW Rabbi Emanuel Quint, Dean Lesson #25: The Minimum Monetary Jurisdiction of the Beth Din There is no maximum monetary amount limiting the jurisdiction of the Beth Din. As to the minimum amount, a Beth Din will not be convened, nor will it compel a defendant to appear in Beth Din unless the required minimum monetary amount, the equivalent of a perutah, is in controversy. A perutah was the coin of the smallest value in Talmudic times. In terms of value, a perutah is the equivalent of one half grain of barley in pure silver. The teaching that the minimum jurisdiction of Beth Din is a perutah is found in a Baraitha in Baba Metzia (55a). Levi, a teacher of the Baraitha, lists five laws where the minimum requirement is a perutah and one of them is the jurisdiction of the Beth Din. The Talmud shows that if at the time the trial commenced, the minimum jurisdictional requirement of a perutah was present, then the trial must be continued even if the claim has been reduced to less than a perutah. This can occur if the plaintiff suffers from a lack of proof or defendant makes an admission for the reduced amount. Once the Beth Din has jurisdiction because the original claim was for a perutah, it retains jurisdiction to judge other claims of the plaintiff that are for less than a perutah. This is the view of Rambam. Asheri, however, holds that if the plaintiff's claim falls below a perutah at any time during the trial, the Beth Din loses jurisdiction over the case. In a case before Beth Din, the party who brings the first claim is the plaintiff and the party being sued is the defendant. Assume that Reuven is the plaintiff and Shimon is the defendant. Reuven commences a case in Beth Din against Shimon for at least a perutah. Shimon has a claim against Reuven. Shimon may start a new case against Reuven or he may counter sue Reuven in the same case that Reuven started. If Shimon does the latter, his claim is designated as a counterclaim against the plaintiff Reuven. Since Beth Din already has jurisdiction over both Reuven the plaintiff in the case and Shimon the defendant in the case, it has jurisdiction over Shimon's counterclaim. This is true even if Shimon's counterclaim is for less than a perutah. Bach comments that a counterclaim for less than a perutah may be entertained by the Beth Din even after judgment has been rendered in favor of plaintiff on his cause of action, since the counterclaim will reduce the amount of the judgment rendered in favor of Reuven. Piskai Teshuva raises an interesting question. Two partners, each of whom has a claim against the defendant for half a perutah. May they join their claims to add up to a perutah and give Beth Din jurisdiction over their claims? Aruch haShulhan writes that if their claims involve partnership business, then the causes of action may be joined to render the requisite jurisdiction. However, if their claims do not involve partnership business, they may not combine their claims to meet the perutah requirement. The converse also holds true. That is, if the plaintiff has claims against two persons each for half a perutah he may sue them both and he now has a claim for a perutah. This despite of the fact that both defendants are not partners. Although these laws seem inconsistent with he view of Aruch haSulhan stated above, both are the current status of the law. Netivoth observes that, although a Beth Din may not judge a case in which the amount sued for is less than a perutah, nevertheless, if the Beth Din did judge the case, then its legal proceedings have legal consequences even though its judgment is void and unenforceable. Namely, all testimony, including admissions and confessions made at the trial are binding on the parties. In addition, a person who perjured himself at the trial acquires the legal status of a perjurer and thereby affects his credibility to the same extent as if he had perjured himself at a trail where the requisite monetary amount was present. The foregoing discussion raises fundamental question. Since the amount involved is so small, why should Jewish law devote so much effort to what appears to be an almost hypothetical subject? The answer is that the topic highlights one of he most important concepts of the Jewish legal system, that a Beth Din must devote its utmost attention to even the smallest detail. A Beth Din should not think that only a major claim merits its full expenditure of time and effort and that it may superficially dispose of small claims. For as the Torah states, "You shall hear the small and the great alike." (Deuteronomy 1:17) As explained in the Talmud (Sanhedrin 8a) this verse contains two important admonitions. First, a lawsuit that seeks a relatively small money judgment should be given the same degree of consideration and investigation as a lawsuit that seeks a large amount of money. In addition, it also teaches that a smaller case must be given priority if it arose first. Every judge who judges a case with complete fairness even for a single hour is credited as though he had become a partner to the Holy One, Blessed Be He, in the work of creation. (Shabbat 10a) The topic of the monetary jurisdiction of the Beth Din is discussed at length in chapter six of A Restatement of Rabbinic Civil Law published by Jason Aronson Address comments to quint@inter.net.il
For Your Information... These are the topics dealt with in the Choshen Mishpat section of Shulchan Aruch (section numbers are in parentheses). LAWS OF... Judges (1-27); Testimony (28-38); Claims (75-96); Collection of Loans (97-106); Collection of Debts (107-116); Land as Security for a Loan (117-120); Collection Agent (121); Power of Attorney (122-128); Guarantors (129-132); Possession of Chattel (133-139); Possession of Land (140-152); Damages from Neighbors (153-156);Partners in Land (157-170); Dissolving of Partnerships (171-174); to be continued (when space permits) [The Yitro Homepage]
|
