If I Were Called Before A Jerusalem Beis Din...

Let's say that I, living in Brooklyn, have a disagreement with someone living in Lakewood. He feels that I have acted improperly and, therefore, contacts a Beis Din (religious court) in Jerusalem and has them summon me to a civil trial. I believe that I have acted properly and question why he went to a Beis Din all the way in Jerusalem. Here are my options:

1. I can assume, probably naively, that he went to a Jerusalem Beis Din, rather than one in Brooklyn, Lakewood or anywhere in between, out of some Zionist fervor and submit to their ruling. I would then have to fly out to Israel and stay there throughout the civil trial, hoping that they do not have some unusual policy that makes them more sympathetic to my litigant's claim in this particular case. Probably not the smartest move.

2. The Rema (Shulhan Arukh, Hoshen Mishpat 14:1) rules that one litigant cannot force another to travel a long distance to go to a Beis Din if one is available locally, even if the distant Beis Din is better qualified. This is the case so that one litigant cannot force the other to spend a large amount of money to travel. If this were not the case, one could simply summon another to a civil trial in a distant town and the other would prefer to settle for a small amount rather that lay out a large amount for travel expenses.

The Arukh Ha-Shulhan (14:3, 26:5) is very explicit that, when the two litigants live in different cities, the one who calls for the trial must travel to the other litigant's city and that if one litigant refuses to utilize a particular Beis Din in favor of another, he is not considered to be refusing to utilize the Beis Din system in general.

Therefore, I would have the option to state that I refuse to travel to Israel for a civil trial and insist on using a local Brooklyn, established Beis Din.

3. The Shulhan Arukh (Hoshen Mishpat 3:1, 13:1) rules that if one is called to trial, even in his own town, and does not like the Beis Din that was chosen, he has the right to perform a Zabl"a. This means that each litigant chooses one judge and then the two selected judges choose a third. This does not work in a community in which there is one established Beis Din that oversees all religious trials. However, that certainly does not exist in America today.

Therefore, I would have the option to choose a court using the Zabl"a method.

As always, ask a competent rabbi before acting on anything you see here.