CM Questions

Mr. Goldberg had a financial dispute with Lenny (the "Louse"), and he wasn't sure what to do. He therefore went to his Rabbi, Rabbi Cohen, for advice. Rabbi Cohen listened to him and said that it is a valid dispute, and that Mr. Goldberg should go to the Yorkville Beis Din with Lenny (the "Louse") to have it adjudicated. Rabbi Cohen later told Lenny (the "Louse") that Mr. Goldberg had told him what happened and the Beis Din is the proper place to handle this dispute. As it happens, Rabbi Cohen is one of the Rabbis on the Yorkville Beis Din. Can Rabbi Cohen sit as a Dayan on this case when it eventually comes in front of the Beis Din?

1. No, he can never sit on this Beis Din because he heard the case from Mr. Goldberg without Lenny (the "louse") present.
2. Yes, but only if both sides agree to this. But if one side does not agree, he cannot sit on the Beis Din.
3. Yes. Since he was only hearing preliminary information, and will now hear the full case in front of both litigants, there is not a problem for Rabbi Cohen to be on the Beis Din.

Rabbi Toledano heard both sides in the case in front of him, and in his mind the verdict was already clear. Must he do anything before announcing a verdict?

1. Yes. After hearing both parties, a judge must summarize both arguments before rendering a verdict. 
2. No. As long as a majority of the three judges are in agreement, they can just render a verdict. The S.A. does not require a summary - though a judge could offer one if desired.

When the two litigants appear in front of the Yorkville Beis Din, how should the Rabbis relate to each of the two litigants?

1. They should relate to each one as if they are innocent.
2. They should relate to each one as if they are guilty.

Fishel (the local indigent Jew), had stepped away from his "cardboard box home" for only a few minutes when Levy came driving by in his fancy car and destroyed his box - and the new iPhone that some kind soul had given him only last week. Fishel sued Levy in the Yorkville Beis Din for $21.37, the cost of a new cardboard box and a simple Tracphone. The Beis Din understood that Levy was at fault, but they also understood that the damaged iPhone was worth closer to $1000 - but to Fishel, a "phone is a phone" and he didn't understand his iPhone's actual worth. Can the Beis Din award Fishel $1041.36 - the replacement price of a new iPhone and a new cardboard box?

Fishel (the local indigent Jew), had stepped away from his "cardboard box home" for only a few minutes when Levy came driving by in his fancy car and destroyed his box - and the new iPhone that some kind soul had given him only last week. Fishel sued Levy in the Yorkville Beis Din for $21.37, the cost of a new cardboard box and a simple Tracphone. The Beis Din understood that Levy was at fault and should pay $1041.36 - the replacement price of a new iPhone and a new cardboard box. After deliberation, the Beis Din decided to award Fishel $1041.36 and not the $21.37 that he originally claimed. How much money can Fishel now force Levy to pay him?

1. $0.00
2. $21.37
3. $1041.36

At the end of Shacharis, on the morning after Harry Brochstein graciously hosted sheva brochos for Mr. Goldberg's daughter and son-in-law, Mr. Brochstein confronted Mr. Goldberg: "Someone cracked my very expensive Stueben Glass Egg last night, and I think you should pay!" Mr. Goldberg denied responsibility, and as the two of them wanted to get to a quick resolution, they asked Rabbi Goodman to hear their arguments right then and there. While Rabbi Goodman was an expert at Choshen Mishpat, there were no other Rabbis available to sit on a Beis Din, so he asked Mel Hoffman and Arnold Sunenshine - two regular members of his synagogue - to be the other two members of the Beis Din. After hearing the arguments, Rabbi Goodman felt it was obvious that Mr. Goldberg was not obligated to pay anything. However, Mel and Arnold disagreed. How do we determine the final outcome?

1. We follow Rabbi Goodman, as he is an expert at Choshen Mishpat, even though he is not the majority.
2. We follow Mel and Arnold, as they are the majority, even though they are unlearned in the laws of Choshen Mishpat.

The Yorkville Beis Din reached a verdict in the monetary case of Mr. Goldberg versus Lenny (the "Louse"), but both litigants were not in the courtroom to hear the verdict. How can they deliver the verdict?

1. They must call both parties back to the Beis Din, as monetary verdicts must always be delivered in person.
2. They could call both parties back to the Beis Din, but they also have an option to instead send the verdict to both parties via Email.

Mr. Goldberg lost in his monetary case against Lenny (the "louse") in the Yorkville Beis Din. When Mr. Goldberg went to Florida for the winter, he mentioned the case to Rabbi Goodman, and even showed him the transcript of the case and the final judgement. Rabbi Goodman looked over the papers and was shocked by how much money Mr. Goldberg had to pay, and felt that there was no halachic basis for the Yorkville Beis Din to demand such a large payment. Can Rabbi Goodman tell Mr. Goldberg his opinion of this ruling?

Rabbi Toledano was shocked that the other two Rabbis on the Yorkville Beis Din found the defendant guilty and obligated him to pay over $100,000 to the plaintiff, as Rabbi Toledano felt that the defendant was innocent and not even obligated to pay a penny! But he was overruled by the other two Rabbis. The secretary presented the Rabbis with a printed copy of the verdict to sign, but after the other two Rabbis signed, Rabbi Toledano did not want to sign and attach his name to this very unjust verdict. Can the other Rabbis force Rabbi Toledano to sign the verdict?

"Respected dayanim, I have evidence that will prove that I do not owe the other party any money. However, I do not have access to this proof today, and I am not sure when I will get it." said Richard Kagan to the judges of the Yorkville Beis Din. With no proof on Richard's side, they ruled in favor of the plaintiff and ordered Richard to pay. HOWEVER, they wrote in the judgement that if the defendant can present his evidence within 30 days, they will reopen the case and judge it based on this new evidence. Unfortunately, Richard couldn't obtain his proof for SIX FULL MONTHS! Can he still force the Beis Din to reopen the case and allow him to present his evidence, even though he missed the 30-day deadline?

"Mr. Kagan, do you have any other witnesses or evidence to prove your case?" asked the judges of the Yorkville Beis Din. "No, I do not." was his response. As such, the judges ruled against Richard Kagan and ordered him to pay the plaintiff. Fast forward six months and Richard is discussing the case during a family get-together. "Why didn't you show him the catering receipts?" asked Richard's brother Ariel. "I didn't think those receipts would have helped my case" said Richard. Ariel explained that this evidence could have enabled him to win the case. Can Richard go back to the Beis Din at this time and demand that they reopen the case and accept his evidence?

Richard Kagan was suing his "former partner" on his Lakeshore Towers project on Lake Tahoe for $1 Million. They both agreed to the La Brea Beis Din in Los Angeles, but during the hearing, Richard realized that the original contract he brought was superseded by another contract they wrote - and he left that in his office. "Your Honors, I have incontrovertible proof for my case, but it is back in New York." After some discussion, the judges gave Richard 30 days to bring the evidence back to their court. They made a "kinyon" in which Richard lifted the hat of one of the judges, and stated that if he did not bring the proof within 30 days then he would abandon the case. Richard found the evidence back in his office, but due to his busy schedule the next time he could travel back to LA would be the 29th day, arriving on the 30th day. His secretary made the reservation, but the evening of the 29th it began to snow, and the airport closed down. The snow was so heavy that it was not able to reopen for another 36 hours, and by that time it was already too late to appear on the 30th day, so he didn't bother going back to the Beis Din. Six months later Richard had other business in LA, and he stopped by the La Brea Beis Din to present his evidence. Given that Richard made a kinyon to bring the evidence within 30 days, and this is not only after 30 days, but five additional months, will the Beis Din accept his evidence?

Harry Brochstein claimed that Mel Hoffman owed him money, and while both parties agreed that some money was owed, Mel claimed it was only $10,000 and Harry claimed it was $50,000. They arranged with the Boca Beis Din for a hearing the week after Purim, but before the hearing Harry told the secretary of the Beis Din that if he does not show up for the hearing, he will forgive the money in his claim (and Mel will only have to pay $10,000, the money they both agree on). He then called Mel and repeated this statement. The day of the hearing arrived, and Mel and the three judges arrived, but Harry was a no-show. The secretary contacted Harry and transferred the call to the hearing room. “Sorry, but I am leaving right now to go visit my daughter in Israel, so I am not coming to the Beis Din,” said Harry. “Is there something beyond your control that is causing you to leave today?” asked one of the judges.  “No. Visiting my daughter and her family is simply more important than going to Beis Din – and that is what I have decided to do.” After Pesach, when Harry returned to Boca, can he once again take Mel to the Boca Beis Din to claim his $50,000?

1. Yes, Harry can still take Mel back to the Boca Beis Din to claim his money.
2. No. Harry stated clearly that if he didn’t show up, he would forgive the money in his claim. Since he didn’t show up, therefore, he can no longer claim the money.