Question:
Is a Beth Din required to provide a reason for its ruling?
Answer:
According to the Halacha, usually a Beis Din is not required to provide a reasoning for its ruling. If, however, the Dayanim perceive that the losing party suspects that the Beis Din has ruled against him for unfair reasons, the Beis Din must explain the reasoning for the ruling in order to demonstrate that the ruling is fair and correct.
Nonetheless, in practice, nowadays before a Beis Din begins proceedings, both parties sign as Shtar Borrerus (Deed of Arbitration) and often it states in the Shtar Borrerus that the parties forgo their right to request a reasoning for the ruling. The reason this is included is that often the Dayanim recognize that the losing party does not want to accept the ruling, and if the reasoning is provided he will use it as an excuse to ignore the ruling, claiming that he disagrees with the reasoning and therefore believing (mistakenly) that he need not carry out the ruling of the Beis Din. If the Dayanim see no reason to suspect this, they will usually provide the reasoning behind the ruling if requested to do so, despite the above clause in the Shtar Borrerus; alternatively, they might instruct the parties to carry out the ruling first, and once this is done they will see no reason not to provide the reasoning.
IF ONE OF THE DAYYANIM TELLS YOU THAT THE PSAK OFFERED BY THE BEIS DIN WAS A MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE, DOES THE LITIGANT HAVE ANY OPTIONS ?
This is a tough question. According to the official halachah, one beis din does not have jurisdiction to look into the rulings of another, and therefore there is little to do. However, the av beis din can certainly be approached with a request for a clearly written psak explaining the ruling. After the psak is received, one may respond to the psak, perhaps with the assistance of a dayan or somebody knowlegable in the field, explaining why the ruling is a miscarriage of justice, and requesting that the injustice be set right. The rest depends on the nature of the mistake (bidevar mishnah or beshikul hadaas), and on the attitude of the dayanim involved in the case. Wish you luck!
Leave a comment