Méhéchán dántuni

If both parties to a lawsuit are stubborn, one saying, 'Let us go to law here,' and the other saying, 'Let us go to the Supreme Court of Law,' they compel him and he attends the Court in his home town. And if he stated, 'Write down the reasons for your verdict and give [them] to me, for you may have erred,' — they write [them] down and give [them] to him and afterwards they exact payment from him [in accordance with their verdict]. If it was necessary to consult the Supreme Court of Law, they set down [their inquiry] in writing and send it on and seek advice [from them], and they [the inquiring Court of Law] try them [the litigants] in their own town according to the [ruling contained] in the document of the Supreme Court of Law, and both litigants pay the messenger's fee. Gloss: However, if one of the litigants or the Judges desires to send [the inquiry] to a distant country while there is a scholar close by them who is worthy to try the case, — [then] they send [the inquiry] to the one close by, although the one who is at a distance is a greater scholar, for he [the litigant] has no authority to be the cause of a loss to his [fellow-] litigant, [viz.,] to increase the fee for the message [dispatched], and so much the more if there is another scholar in their town who is worthy to adjudicate [the case]. If two Scholars are close by at an equal [distance], we accept as authority the greater one. When does this apply? — In connection with other laws, [viz.,] where one [litigant] is a claimant and the other [litigant] is [also] a claimant, or where the creditor says, 'Let us attend Court here,' and the debtor says, 'Let us go to the Supreme Court of Law;' but if the creditor said, 'Let us go to the Supreme Court of Law,' — they compel the debtor and he goes up with him [the creditor]. Likewise, if one party claimed that one injured or robbed him and the claimant wishes to go up [and have the case tried by the Supreme Court of Law], [then] the Court of Law that is in his town compels the defendant to go up with him, and so too, in all analogous cases. [Furthermore,] when does this apply? — When the one robbed or the one who was injured or the creditor produce witnesses or proof [to substantiate their claim], but [where the claimant puts forth] an unfounded claim, we do not require the defendant to leave at all save that he takes an oath and is free [from payment]. So too, is the law nowadays when no Supreme Court of Law exists there. Some say that an eminent Court of Law in every generation according to whatever standing it may have, is regarded as the Supreme Court of Law. However, if there are localities in that province wherein there are distinguished Scholars recognized as authorities by the public, and [there are also] localities wherein there are disciples who are not [as distinguished] as they, — [then] if the creditor stated, 'Let us go to a certain locality in a certain country to So-and-so, the distinguished personage, and attend Court before him, — [the law is that] we may compel the debtor [to submit to the creditor's demand] and he goes with him. Gloss: [Provided] if the claimant produces witnesses or proof [to substantiate his claim] or it appears to the Court in his home town that there is substance in his claims, but otherwise he [the defendant] is not compelled to go with him. And some say that [with respect to] claims put forth [by contesting parties], [viz.,] 'Let us attend the Supreme Court of Law,' there is no difference between a claimant and a defendant, and [the law is that] each one [of the litigants] can compel his fellow [-litigant] to go with him. All this is [applicable] from the legal point of view, but nowadays it is already the adopted custom that as long as there is a Court of Law in town, one [litigant] cannot compel his fellow [-litigant] to go with him to another Court of Law, for now we have no Supreme Court of Law or House of Assembly. Therefore, [the defendant] cannot put him off; but he [the defendant] can put him off, [i.e.,] not to attend Court with him [the claimant] until the third day. However, they choose the Judges forthwith. But a [transient] lodger who makes a claim against the townspeople, or two [transient] lodgers [who sue each other, — the law is that] one must attend Court with him forthwith and one cannot put him off. Likewise, a townsman who makes a claim against a [transient] lodger, — [the law is that] wherever he finds him and there is a Court of Law there, he [the townsman] may force him [the lodger] to attend Court in that place. All this is [applicable] when there is a Court of Law [available] in their home town, but if there is no Court of Law [available] there, each one [of the litigants] can force his fellow [-litigant] to go with him to a Court of Law to be tried with him. The claimant must go after the defendant if the latter is in another city, although in the claimant's home town the Court of Law is more eminent, and even [if] the defendant had money in [the form of a] bailment in the claimant's home town or in another town, unless he [the claimant] can retain his [the defendant's] money in his home town, [and if so,] it is then necessary to inform the defendant thereof and consequently, he [the defendant] must attend Court in the locality wherein his money [is found]. , infra § 73 [wherein] I wrote when [it is possible that] he [the claimant] can retain his [the defendant's] money. A father [or mother] who has a claim against his [or her] son, [the law is that] the son, although he is the defendant, must go after his father [or mother] as has been explained. A wealthy individual who is known as a stern person in his home town, is taken out to be tried in another city, although the Court of Law in his home town is more eminent.

If one [of the litigants] is a scholar and knows how to set down his evidence in writing and his opponent is an illiterate person, — [the law is that] the scholar should not write himself when they send on [the case] to seek advice from the Supreme Court of Law, but the Judges should make a copy of them [the arguments]. And both [litigants] pay the scribe's fee.

The Gemara relates: There were these two Samaritans who entered into a joint venture with each other. One of them went and divided the money without the knowledge of the other. They came for judgment before Rav Pappa. Rav Pappa said to the plaintiff: What difference is there, meaning: What did you lose? This is what Rav Naḥman said: Money is considered as though it were already divided. It is not viewed as a single sum.

...

And if one of the litigants says to a court: Write for what reason you judged me in this manner and give it to me, as I do not trust your decision without explanation, the judges write it and give it to him.

...