The Sefer Ha’hinuch lists as the 58^th Biblical command the obligation upon Bet Din to try cases involving a “To’en Ve’nit’an” – a plaintiff and a defendant, when a person has a financial claim against his fellow. The source of this command is a verse in Parashat Mishpatim (Shemot 22:8) which speaks of a certain situation of a monetary claim, and instructs, “Ad Ha’elohim Yabo Debar Shenehem” – the matter should be brought before a Bet Din. According to the Sefer Ha’hinuch, it is here where the Torah commands Bet Din to hear cases whenever a person has a financial claim against his fellow. Whether it’s a situation of theft, damage, an unpaid loan, or an object entrusted to one’s fellow which was not returned, people must have legal recourse when they feel they are rightfully owed money. The Torah therefore commands Bet Din to try these cases and issue a proper ruling according to the Torah’s principles of civil law.

The Sefer Ha’hinuch notes that this Misva is included among the Noachide Laws, the commands which apply to all mankind, and not only to the Jewish Nation. He explains that society cannot function properly without a fair and effective justice system, and therefore the Torah demands that all nations must have courts that hear people’s claims against one another and adjudicate fairly. The Sefer Ha’hinuch cites in this context the Mishna’s teaching in Pirkeh Abot (1:18) that the world “stands upon three pillars,” one of which is the “pillar” of “Din” – justice. Without justice, society would be overrun by chaos, as people would not feel accountable for their actions. And so all societies bear an obligation to establish courts where people who feel they have been wronged can bring their claims.

The Sefer Ha’hinuch here presents a very long list of principles that apply in the Torah’s system of civil law. We will briefly mention some of these rules:

“Modeh Be’miksat Ha’ta’ana”: If a person claims that his fellow owes a certain sum, and the defendant agrees that he owes part of the sum, then the defendant must take a Shebu’a (oath) that he does not owe more than he says. This oath is required if the sum he admits owing is at least a “Peruta” (the smallest unit of money), and the amount he denies is at least two “Ma’a.” The exception is when the plaintiff claims the defendant owes two utensils, and the defendant admits to owing just one. In such a case, even if the utensils are worth less than a “Peruta” – such as if the plaintiff claims two small, simple needles – the defendant must nevertheless take an oath.

“Hoda’a Mi’min Ha’ta’ana”: The defendant must take an oath only if he confesses to part of the plaintiff’s claim, and not to owing something else. For example, if the plaintiff claims that the defendant owes wheat, and the defendant confesses that he owes barley, this does not qualify as “Modeh Be’miksat Ha’ta’ana,” since the defendant did not agree to anything claimed by the plaintiff, and so no oath is administered.

“Meshib Abeda Eno Nishba”: If a person returns a lost item or sum of money to its owner, and the owner claims that the finder actually found more and kept some from himself, the finder is not required to swear. Although this is a situation of “Modeh Be’miksat Ha’ta’ana,” as the finder confesses to half of what the owner claims he owes, nevertheless, the Sages enacted a provision exempting a finder from an oath, due to the concern that people would otherwise refrain from returning lost objects which they find.

“Kofer Ba’kol”: If the defendant denies the claim altogether, then he does not need even need to swear, and is not required to pay unless the plaintiff can provide witnesses to substantiate his claim.

“Hoda’at Ba’al Din Ke’me’a Edim Dameh”: A litigant’s confession has the legal weight of the testimony of one hundred valid witnesses. If a litigant confesses to owing something, his confession obligates him to pay the item or sum in question to the plaintiff.

“Shomrim”: Watchmen who are entrusted with somebody’s object, which they claim was lost, stolen or damaged, bear liability under certain circumstances, depending, in part, on the nature of their arrangement with the owner. For example, in the case of a Shomer Hinam – an unpaid watchman – who claims that the item was lost, Bet Din requires him to take three oaths: that the item is not in his possession, that he was not negligent in his duties as a watchman, and that he did not take the object for himself. After taking these oaths, the watchman does not need to pay the owner anything.

“Hashud Al Ha’shebu’a”: If a defendant is required to take a Shebu’a, but his past history of dishonesty gives Bet Din reason to suspect that he may be prepared to swear falsely, he cannot swear, and must instead pay the plaintiff.

“Migu”: If a defendant could have given a response to the plaintiff which would have been Halachically acceptable, then he is believed even if he gives a different response.

“Gilgul Shebu’a”: In cases where a defendant is required to take an oath, Bet Din will impose upon him also oaths for other claims which otherwise would not have been required.

“Pore’a Hobo Al Yedeh Shali’ah”: If a borrower gives money to a messenger and instructs him to bring the money to the lender, he cannot then retract the Shelihut (assignment of agency).

“En Mekabelin Edut Ela Bi’fneh Ba’al Din”: Bet Din hears a witness’ testimony only if the litigant against whom he testifies is present.

“Ma’amad Shelashtan”: If Reuven owes Shimon money, and he is together with Shimon and another person, Levi, to whom Shimon owes money, then Shimon can tell Reuben to give the money to Levi, and this verbal instruction suffices to transfer the obligation, such that Reuben must now pay Levi the sum he had owed to Shimon.

“Ha’mosi Me’habero Alav Ha’re’aya”: Bet Din does not award a plaintiff money he claims from the defendant without proof. One who claims money from his fellow bears the burden of proof.

“Masranut”: If a person wishes to sell his property, he must grant the owner of the neighboring property the right of first refusal. This is predicated upon the command, “Ve’asita Ha’yashar Ve’ha’tob” (“You shall do that which is upright and good” – Debarim 6:18), requiring that we conduct ourselves with basic decency and goodwill.

This is just a small, brief sampling of the numerous principles on the basis of which Bet Din reaches decisions in civil cases, for the purpose of maintaining a just, peaceful society.

More lectures from Rabbi Eli Mansour

Torah Umesorah Convention 5782

Is it Permissible to Cook Foods on Surfaces Heated by Fire?

Shir Hashirim Perek 2 Part 3

Misva 58: The commandment on the court to judge the case of a plaintiff and a defendant

How Close Must One Be to the Habdallah Candle?

Perashat Vayera Lot and Sedom