נימא הני תנאי כהני תנאי דתנן ר"מ אומר יש דברים שהן כקרקע ואינן כקרקע ואין חכמים מודים לו כיצד עשר גפנים טעונות מסרתי לך והלה אומר אינן אלא חמש ר' מאיר מחייב וחכ"א כל המחובר לקרקע הרי הוא כקרקע
and [only] one priest. R. Huna, the son of R. Nathan, demurred: Why not say that the ten assessors must consist of five priests and five non-priests?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the rule that 'exclusion following exclusion implies extension' is based on redundancy, where there are a whole series of such exclusions, they are not all redundant. Thus, the first 'priest' teaching the exclusion of an Israelite, the second is redundant, and therefore teaches his inclusion. Hence, when the word has been written twice, we know that one priest and one Israelite are necessary. But for that very reason, the third 'priest' is not redundant, but to intimate that a priest is again required; after which the fourth is redundant, and so on; thus the first, third, fifth, seventh and ninth are needed for the actual law of priests and the others are superfluous, which gives five priests and five Israelites.
');"><sup>18</sup></span>
Gray Matter II
The Chazon Ish (Sanhedrin 15:4), however, emphatically forbids litigation in Israeli civil courts, asserting that they do not share the status of Syrian erka’ot. He explains that Syrian erka’ot judged entirely based on common sense, whereas Israeli courts implement an organized non-Torah legal system. Thus, Israeli civil courts attain the status of a non-Jewish court system, despite the fact that the judges and law enforcement officials are mostly Jewish. Moreover, the Chazon Ish adds that Israeli courts are worse than non-Jewish courts, for we expect non-Jews to judge by their own laws, whereas we disapprove of Jews “who have abandoned the laws of the Torah for laws of nonsense.” Indeed, Rav Ovadia Yosef (Teshuvot Yechaveh Da’at 4:65) rules that one who presents a case to a secular Israeli court violates both the prohibition against using non-Jewish courts and the prohibition against causing another Jew to sin (lifnei iveir), because the case provides Jewish judges with an opportunity to apply secular laws.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Gray Matter II
Nevertheless, the Rama (C.M. 3:1) rules that a litigant cannot insist on zabla if there is a local established beit din (beit din kavu’a). The Chazon Ish (Sanhedrin 15:7) offers an explanation for the Rama’s ruling:
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
