Arbitration Agreements and Party Identification

צַדִּ֣יק הָרִאשׁ֣וֹן בְּרִיב֑וֹ (יבא) [וּבָֽא־]רֵ֝עֵ֗הוּ וַחֲקָרֽוֹ׃

The first to speak in court seems right Till the other party cross-examines.

לֹ֥א תַטֶּ֛ה מִשְׁפַּ֥ט אֶבְיֹנְךָ֖ בְּרִיבֽוֹ׃ מִדְּבַר־שֶׁ֖קֶר תִּרְחָ֑ק וְנָקִ֤י וְצַדִּיק֙ אַֽל־תַּהֲרֹ֔ג כִּ֥י לֹא־אַצְדִּ֖יק רָשָֽׁע׃

You shall not subvert the rights of your needy in their disputes. Keep far from a false charge; do not bring death on those who are innocent and in the right, for I will not acquit the wrongdoer.

מַתְנִי׳ אָמַר לוֹ: ״נֶאֱמָן עָלַי אַבָּא״, ״נֶאֱמָן עָלַי אָבִיךָ״, ״נֶאֱמָנִים עָלַי שְׁלֹשָׁה רוֹעֵי בָּקָר״. רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: יָכוֹל לַחְזוֹר בּוֹ, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לַחְזוֹר בּוֹ. אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: מַחְלוֹקֶת בְּ״מָחוּל לָךְ״, אֲבָל בְּ״אֶתֵּן לָךְ״ – דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל יָכוֹל לַחְזוֹר בּוֹ. וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: בְּ״אֶתֵּן לָךְ״ – מַחְלוֹקֶת. תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּאָמַר רָבָא: מַחְלוֹקֶת בְּ״אֶתֵּן לָךְ״, אֲבָל בְּ״מָחוּל לָךְ״ – דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל אֵין יָכוֹל לַחְזוֹר בּוֹ.

MISHNA: If one litigant says to the other: My father is trusted to adjudicate for me, or: Your father is trusted to adjudicate for me, or: Three cattle herders, who are not proficient in halakha, are trusted to adjudicate for me, all of whom are disqualified from serving as judges, Rabbi Meir says: The one who made the offer can retract it, and the Rabbis say: He cannot retract it, but must accept their verdict. Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: The dispute between Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis is with regard to a case where the claimant had said to the defendant: The money I claim you owe me is forgiven you if my father or your father rules as judge to that effect, and the claimant subsequently wishes to retract his offer. But in a case where it is the defendant who said: I will give you what you claim if that is the ruling of this judge, everyone agrees that he can retract his offer. And Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The dispute is with regard to a case where the defendant said: I will give you what you claim if that is the ruling of this judge. The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a resolution from that which Rava says: The dispute is with regard to a case where the defendant says: I will give you, but in a case where the claimant says: The money I claim you owe me is forgiven you, everyone agrees that he cannot retract his offer.

אֵין כּוֹתְבִין שְׁטָרֵי בֵירוּרִין אֶלָּא מִדַּעַת שְׁנֵיהֶם וְכוּ׳. מַאי ״שְׁטָרֵי בֵירוּרִין״? הָכָא תַּרְגִּימוּ: שְׁטָרֵי טַעֲנָתָא. רַב יִרְמְיָה בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר: זֶה בּוֹרֵר לוֹ אֶחָד, וְזֶה בּוֹרֵר לוֹ אֶחָד.

The mishna teaches: A scribe may not write documents testifying to arbitration or any other court enactment except with the consent of both parties to the litigation. The Gemara asks: What is meant by documents testifying to arbitration? Here in Babylonia the Sages interpreted it to mean documents recording the claims of the two parties to the litigation. Rav Yirmeya bar Abba says: A document testifying to arbitration is one that records the procedure in which the composition of the court is chosen, as described in tractate Sanhedrin (23a), whereby this litigant chooses one judge and that litigant chooses one judge, and these two judges choose the third one.

מַתְנִי׳ מָצָא אִיגְּרוֹת שׁוּם וְאִיגְּרוֹת מָזוֹן, שְׁטָרֵי חֲלִיצָה וּמֵיאוּנִין, וּשְׁטָרֵי בֵירוּרִין, וְכׇל מַעֲשֵׂה בֵּית דִּין – הֲרֵי זֶה יַחְזִיר. גְּמָ׳ מַאי ״שְׁטָרֵי בֵירוּרִין״? הָכָא תַּרְגִּמוּ שְׁטָרֵי טַעֲנָתָא. רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה אָמַר: זֶה בּוֹרֵר לוֹ אֶחָד וְזֶה בּוֹרֵר לוֹ אֶחָד.

MISHNA: If one found documents of appraisal of a debtor’s property for the purpose of debt collection; or documents concerning food, which were drawn up when one accepted upon himself to provide sustenance for another; documents of ḥalitza; or documents of refusal of a girl upon reaching majority to remain married to the man to whom her mother or brothers married her as a minor after the death of her father; or documents of beirurin, a concept that will be explained in the Gemara; or any court enactment, e.g., a promissory note that has been authenticated by the court, in all of these cases, the finder must return the document to its presumed owner. GEMARA: What is meant by documents of beirurin? Here, in Babylonia, the Sages interpret it to mean documents recording each litigant’s clarification [beirur] of his claims in a court case. Rabbi Yirmeya, who lived in Eretz Yisrael, said: It is referring to cases where this litigant chooses [borer] one judge, and that litigant chooses one judge, and they choose the third judge for the case. The two litigants sign a document in which they declare which judges they choose.

מִי שֶׁקִּבֵּל עָלָיו קָרוֹב אוֹ פָּסוּל בֵּין לִהְיוֹתוֹ דַּיָּן בֵּין לִהְיוֹתוֹ עֵד עָלָיו. אֲפִלּוּ קִבֵּל אֶחָד מִן הַפְּסוּלִים בַּעֲבֵרָה כִּשְׁנֵי עֵדִים כְּשֵׁרִים לְהָעִיד עָלָיו אוֹ כִּשְׁלֹשָׁה בֵּית דִּין מֻמְחִין לָדוּן לוֹ. בֵּין שֶׁקִּבֵּל עַל עַצְמוֹ לְאַבֵּד זְכֻיּוֹתָיו וְלִמְחל מַה שֶּׁהָיָה טוֹעֵן עַל פִּיהֶן. בֵּין שֶׁקִּבֵּל שֶׁיִּתֵּן כָּל מַה שֶּׁיִּטְעֹן עָלָיו חֲבֵרוֹ בְּעֵדוּת זוֹ הַפָּסוּל אוֹ בְּדִינוֹ. אִם קָנוּ מִיָּדוֹ עַל זֶה אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לַחְזֹר בּוֹ. וְאִם לֹא קָנוּ מִיָּדוֹ יָכוֹל לַחְזֹר בּוֹ עַד שֶׁיִּגָּמֵר הַדִּין. נִגְמַר הַדִּין וְהוֹצִיא הַמָּמוֹן בְּדִין זֶה הַפָּסוּל אוֹ בְּעֵדוּתוֹ אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לַחְזֹר:

The following rules apply when a litigant accepts his own or an opposing litigant's relative or another person who is unacceptable to serve as a judge or a witness in his case. If he affirms his commitment with a kinyan, he cannot retract his consent. If he did not affirm his commitment with a kinyan, he can retract his consent until the case is concluded. Once the verdict is rendered and the unacceptable judge ruled in his verdict - or a verdict was rendered on the basis of the testimony of an unacceptable witness - that money should be expropriated, the litigant may not retract. The above laws also apply if a litigant accepted a person who is disqualified because he committed a transgression as two witnesses to testify concerning him or as a court of three judges to rule concerning his interests. Similarly, it applies regardless of whether he gave his consent at the risk of forfeiting rights and waiving a claim that he is pressing or he gave his consent at the risk of having to pay what the plaintiff demands of him because of the testimony of this unacceptable witness or because of the ruling of this unacceptable judge.

כותבים פלוני בירר את פלוני ופלוני בירר את פלוני וכל זמן שלא כתבו יכולין לחזור בהם ומשכתבו אין יכולין לחזור בהם לפיכך אין כותבין אלא מדעת שניהם ושניהם נותנים שכר הסופר: הגה וה"ה אם קנו מידו (נ"י פ"ק דב"מ) וי"א דמשטענו בפניהם אינם יכולים לחזור אף ע"פ שלא כתבו (שם בשם הירושלמי) ונ"ל דבמקום שאין דרך לכתוב פלוני בירר פלוני וכו' משטענו בפניהם א"י לחזור לכ"ע וכ"מ שא"י לחזור לא יוכל ג"כ לומר שיוסיפו הדיינים (ר"י נט"ו ח"ג):

A document is prepared [in which it is stated], 'So-and-so chose So-and-so [to act as Judge] and So-and-so chose So-and-so [to act as Judge].' And so long as they did not write [this document], they [the contesting parties] may retract, but once they prepared [this document], they cannot retract. Therefore, they do not write [this document] save with the consent of both parties, and both pay the scribe's fee. Gloss: And likewise if they made [each party] obligate himself by means of a Kinyan. Some say that once they stated their pleas before them [the Judges], they cannot retract even if they did not prepare a document. And it seems to me that in a locality where it is not the practice to prepare a document [in which it is stated], 'So-and-so chose So-and-so etc., [then] once they [the contesting parties] stated their pleas before them [the Judges], all agree that neither of them can retract. And where one cannot retract, one likewise cannot state that the number of Judges should be increased.

הודאה בחתם ידו והשטר בגופן של עכו"ם והדבר ברור שאינו יודע לקרותה ויש עדים שחתם עד שלא קראו מ"מ מתחייב הוא בכל מה שכתוב בו:

3. If a confession was given in a party’s handwriting but the document was a gentile form, and it is clear that the party cannot read it and there are witnesses that he did not read it, the party still obligates himself to whatever is written in it.

הָאָדָם רָאוּי שֶׁיִּתְדַּמֶּה לְקוֹנוֹ וְאָז יִהְיֶה בְּסוֹד הַצּוּרָה הָעֶלְיוֹנָה צֶלֶם וּדְמוּת, שֶׁאִלּוּ יְדֻמֶּה בְּגוּפוֹ וְלֹא בִּפְעֻלּוֹת הֲרֵי הוּא מַכְזִיב הַצּוּרָה וְיֹאמְרוּ עָלָיו צוּרָה נָאָה וּמַעֲשִׂים כְּעוּרִים. שֶׁהֲרֵי עִיקָר הַצֶּלֶם וְהַדְּמוּת הָעֶלְיוֹן הֵן פְּעֻלּוֹתָיו, וּמַה יוֹעִיל לוֹ הֱיוֹתוֹ כְּצוּרָה הָעֶלְיוֹנָה דְּמוּת תַּבְנִית אֵבָרָיו וּבַפְּעֻלּוֹת לֹא יִתְדַמֶּה לְקוֹנוֹ. לְפִיכָךְ רָאוּי שֶׁיִּתְדַּמֶּה אֶל פְּעֻלּוֹת הַכֶּתֶר שֶׁהֵן י"ג מִדּוֹת שֶׁל רַחֲמִים עֶלְיוֹנוֹת. וּרְמוּזוֹת בְּסוֹד הַפְּסוּקִים (מיכה ז, יח) מִי אֵל כָּמוֹךָ.

Chapter 1 - That it is fitting for a person to resemble his Creator: It is fitting for a person to resemble his Creator and then he will be [configured] in the secret of the Highest Form, [both] in image and likeness. As if he is alike in his body but not in his actions, he betrays the Form; and they will say about him, "A lovely form, but ugly deeds." As behold, the essence of the Highest Image and Likeness is His actions. And what will it benefit him to have the structure of his limbs like the Highest Form, but not resemble his Creator in his actions?