Partner With Dinonline.org – Click Here 

Pesharah in Bais Din

Question:

From the gemara Sanhedrin 6b, it appears that pesharah is preferable because it leads to a more peaceful resolution. Could you please explain to me what the Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 181:1 means when he says “to avoid zilusa d’vai dina” ?
Thank you.

 

Answer:

Good question. I don’t have an answer. If you get an answer please let me know.

Thanks

 

Join the Conversation

1 Comment

  1. The Gemara in Sanhedrin is referring to litigation cases that come in front of BEIS DIN; that the Beis Din should first offer to help mediate a compromise (Peshara) between the litigants, instead of having to resort to applying the strict letter of the law in order to the adjudicate the matter [Choshen Mishpat (12:2)].

    The Kitzur Shulchan Aruch (181:1) however, is referring to two parties that are having a financial dispute, PRIOR to going to Beis Din.

    The KSA posits that it is preferable for the two parties to try to reach an amicable compromise, ON THEIR OWN, in order to avoid having their case heard in Beis Din.

    The reason that a self-arranged compromise is preferable, is due to the fact, that if the case is heard in Beis Din, it’s possible that the one who loses the case, might disrespect the judges who ruled against him, and might even be unable to control himself, and will verbally or mentally disparage them, saying that they’re incompetent.

    This leads to זילותא דבי דינא; erosion in the honor and respect that people have for Beis Din.

    We prefer to minimize the overall number of cases that Beis Din actually hears, since inevitably, each case will have a winner and a loser, and each additional case poses a new potential for זילותא דבי דינא.

    This potential disrespect can only be avoided, if the two parties are committed to resolve their differences on their own, by independently working out a compromise, and avoiding having to resort to intervention by Beis Din.

    Source: Shulchan Aruch Ha’Mekutzar (R’ Yitzchak Ratzabi) (Vol. 8) (CM 211:10, and note 35).

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *