THE RABBI AS ARBITER

could be much more relaxed than in a formal hearing and with few exceptions the arbiters did not have to issue a formal brief explaining their decision.” Overall, then, the arbitration procedure was faster and less complicated than a court case, and yet was of the same legal weight.

Over time, as| mentioned, these special courts, called on occasion“beit din hedyotot,” were encouraged as a way for Jewish litigants to avoid going to non-Jewish , government courts and thereby keep the resolution of community disputes within the Jewish community. This seems to have been especially the case in which a small community had no recognized legal authorities who could constitute a formal beit din. As an example of how this worked, note the citation from the Codes:

"Whoever appoints a judge, one who is not qualified or is not knowledgable in the knowledge of Torah and is not suitable to be a judge, even if he is very observant and he has other positive attributes, lo the one who appoints him violates a negative command. GLOSS: and it is forbidden to appoint an am ha-aretz even on condition that he will confer regularly with a sage. But as for villages that do not have sages suitable to be judges or in which everyone is an am ha-aretz but which need judges to adjudicate between them so that they will not go to courts of the gentiles should appoint the best and wisest among them even if they are not suitable to be judges. Since the villagers agreed among themselves to accept these appointees, no one is able to countermand their rulings. Thus any community can accept for itself a court that is not suitable according to Torah .""’

The practice in Europe , then, as reflected in Isserles ' gloss is that non-rabbinic courts could be empaneled, and their decisions had legal weight if no alternative was readily available. In such a case, it was possible to appoint a court of non-judges, but arbiters, whose decision would still be binding. In this case the halakhah,

79