Hebrew | Francais


> > Archive

Shabbat Parashat Naso 5781

P'ninat Mishpat: Interpreting an Arbitration Clause

(based on ruling 75123 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts)

Case: The plaintiff (=pl) rented out his apartment to the defendant (=def), and a dispute arose between them. Pl decided to sue def at Eretz Hemdah-Gazit, which def opposes. The contract includes a clause that “conflicts will be decided in Beit Din X or in any beit din that the landlord decides.” Def understands this as giving authority to pl to choose the beit din only if Beit Din X is unable or unwilling to adjudicate. Def also claims that this is not a valid arbitration clause because it is not identified in the contract as such. Def also raised the possibility that this part of the contract is forged because it is among the pages of the contract that is not initialed. Furthermore, the question of deciding how to interpret an arbitration agreement should be adjudicated in the beit din of def’s choice. Pl counters that since the clause is clear, if def refuses to submit to Beit Din Eretz Hemdah’s jurisdiction, as pl wants, beit din should adjudicate in abstentia or allow pl to sue in secular court. Def argues that it is illegal to rule in abstentia.   


Ruling: There is no need, according to neither Halacha nor secular law, for an arbitration clause to be labeled as such if its content indicates that this is the clause’s function. Def’s claim of possible forgery is a serious one. Def should have a copy of the rental contract. If it is different from the one that pl sent to beit din, this supports the claim of forgery, but def did not present such an alternative contract, making it wrong to propose the claim with scant basis.

Def’s claim that beit din categorically cannot rule in abstentia is incorrect. If it is determined that beit din has jurisdiction and the defendant consciously refused to come without justification and does not give in to pressure (see Shut Maharil Diskin, P’sakim 52), beit din may hear the plaintiff’s claims, investigate the matter, and rule (Maharam Shick, Choshen Mishpat 2; Guidelines of the Israeli Rabbinical Courts). On the other hand, this is an unusual step that is contemplated only when there is no choice. In this case, def has an argument over jurisdiction and is not outright refusing to adjudicate. Therefore, ruling in abstentia is not currently “on the table.”

The correct reading of the arbitration clause is not a trivial matter. According to the laws of arbitration, a court is incapable of making a binding determination (when one is needed) about its own jurisdiction. According to law, the jurisdiction is adjudicated by the governmental courts. However, since both sides are G-d-fearing people who agree to go to beit din, it is proper that another beit din determine it. Def is correct that as the defendant, he gets to choose the venue (Shulchan Aruch, CM 14), and therefore they should bring their preliminary dispute to Beit Din X to rule on jurisdiction. If Beit Din X rules that the adjudication should be by us, then even according to def’s reading of the arbitration agreement, they must do so.

Top of page
Print this page
Send to friend


We daven for a complete and speedy refuah for:

Nir Rephael ben Rachel Bracha
Yisrael ben Rivka

Rivka Reena bat Gruna Natna

Arye Yitzchak ben Geula Miriam

Neta bat Malka

Meira bat Esther

Together with all cholei Yisrael

Hemdat Yamim is dedicated

to the memory of:

Those who fell in wars

for our homeland


Eretz Hemdah's beloved friends

and Members of

Eretz Hemdah's Amutah


Rav Shlomo Merzel z”l
Iyar 10, 5771


Rav Reuven Aberman z"l

Tishrei 9 ,5776


Mr. Shmuel & Esther Shemesh z"l

Sivan 17 / Av 20


Mr. Moshe Wasserzug z"l

Tishrei 20 ,5781


R' Eliyahu Carmel z"l

Rav Carmel's father

Iyar 8 ,5776


Mrs. Sara Wengrowsky

bat RMoshe Zev a”h.

Tamuz 10 ,5774


Rav Asher & Susan Wasserteil z"l
Kislev 9 / Elul 5780

RMeir ben

Yechezkel Shraga Brachfeld z"l


Mrs. Sara Brachfeld z"l

Tevet 16 ,5780


RYaakov ben Abraham & Aisha


Chana bat Yaish & Simcha

Sebbag, z"l


Rav Yisrael Rozen z"l
Cheshvan 13, 5778


Rav Benzion Grossman z"l
Tamuz 23, 5777


Rav Moshe Zvi (Milton)

Polin z"l

Tamuz 19,  5778


R' Abraham Klein z"l

Iyar 18 ,5779


Mrs. Gita Klein z"l

Av 4


R' Yitzchak Zev Tarshansky z"l

Adar 28, 5781

Hemdat Yamim
is endowed by Les z"l  & Ethel Sutker
of Chicago, Illinois
in loving memory of
Max and Mary Sutker

& Louis and Lillian Klein z”l

site by entry.
Eretz Hemdah - Institute for Advanced Jewish Studies, Jerusalem All Rights Reserved | Privacy Policy. | Terms of Use.