Responsa for Sanhedrin 62:21
<br><br><big><strong>הדרן עלך זה בורר</strong></big><br><br>
he [the defendant] must attend the court in his<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The plaintiff's. ');"><sup>18</sup></span> home town. And if it is necessary to consult [the Assembly], the matter is written down and forwarded to them. And if the litigant<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who declined to appear before the local court, v. Tosaf. ');"><sup>19</sup></span> says 'Write down the grounds on which you made your decision and give them to me,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that he might ascertain the legality of their decision. ');"><sup>20</sup></span> they must write them down and give him the document. The Yebamah<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H] fem. of [H] v. Glos. ');"><sup>21</sup></span> is bound to follow the Yabam [to his own town] that he may release her.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From the obligations of levirate marriage. ');"><sup>22</sup></span> How far? — R. Ammi answered: Even from Tiberias to Sepphoris.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Although the court in the former city was more eminent (Rashi). Actually, these two towns were near to each other. ');"><sup>23</sup></span> R. Kahana said: What verse proves it? — Then the elders of his city shall call him;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXV, 8. ');"><sup>24</sup></span> but not the elders of her city. Amemar said: The law is that he is compelled to go to the place of the Assembly.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Referring to a dispute between litigants regarding the place of trial. ');"><sup>25</sup></span> R. Ashi said to him: Did not R. Eleazar say, He is compelled to attend court in his [opponent's] town? — That is only where the debtor demands it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To go to the Assembly. ');"><sup>26</sup></span> of the creditor; but if the creditor [demands, it, the debtor must submit, for] The borrower is servant to the lender.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Prov. XXII, 7. ');"><sup>27</sup></span> A message was once sent<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By the judicial court in Palestine. ');"><sup>28</sup></span> to Mar 'Ukba:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He held the office of Ab-Beth-din in Kafri near by Nehardea, and was a contemporary of Samuel Yarhinai. v. Sabb. 55a; Rashi, Kidd. 44b. ');"><sup>29</sup></span> 'To him whose lustre is like that of the son of Bithia,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Moses (Rashi). V. p. 102. [Or, 'like the Son of the House', an honorific title among the Persian nobility, Funk, op. cit., I, 33, n. 1.] ');"><sup>30</sup></span> Peace be with thee. 'Ukban the Babylonian has complained to us, saying: "My brother Jeremiah has obstructed my way."31 Speak therefore to him, and see that he meets us in Tiberias.' But is this not self-contradictory? First you say, 'Speak to him,'i.e., judge him;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence, in Babylonia. ');"><sup>32</sup></span> and then you add, 'See that he meets us in Tiberias,' shewing [that they told him], Send him hither! — What they meant was: Speak to him and judge him;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., Judge you the case first. ');"><sup>33</sup></span> if he accepts your decision, well and good; if not, see to it that he appears before us in Tiberias.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence we see that even where the plaintiff desired the defendant to appear in another court, yet at the outset preference was given to the local court. ');"><sup>34</sup></span> R. Ashi says: This was a case of Kenas, and in Babylonia they could not try cases of Kenas.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. B.K. 84a. ');"><sup>35</sup></span> But as for their sending him a message in such terms,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Implying that they asked him to judge the case himself. ');"><sup>36</sup></span> that was only to shew respect to Mar 'Ukba.
Teshuvot Maharam
A. If both parties agree to rely on the local court, the matter is left to the court either to rely on their own judgment, or to inquire of an authoritative court of their own choosing. But, if the parties to the suit come to no agreement, and one of the litigants demands that the case be brought before an authoritative court, the claimant has the right to determine before which court the case shall be tried. In this case the widow is the claimant.
SOURCES: Cr. 98.
Teshuvot Maharam
A. The Talmud differentiates between litigants, giving a creditor the right to choose the court for the trial of his case (Sanh. 31b). At present, however, an ordinance of the communities prevails to the effect that, in a place where an authoritative court exists, no litigant may insist on taking his case before the Beth Havaad. Therefore, the litigants (of Rothenburg) must choose a court that will hear their claims; and the court, in turn, will refer their claims to a superior court of its own choosing.
SOURCES: P. 290. Cf. Weil, Responsa 155.
Teshuvot Maharam
A. A trustee appointed by both parties is not required to take an oath regarding the terms of his trusteeship. But, Leah was not appointed trustee by both parties. She was only appointed by the husband, and, therefore, is required to take an oath. Leah's husband cannot object to imposing an oath on her. If the law requires that a woman take an oath, the husband has no right to protest against her being degraded in court. But, since Leah, as long as she is married, has no money of her own, and were she to claim that she had already returned the deposit, no oath would be imposed on her, we now lend credence to her words and require no oath. However, the court should give A a writ stating that after Leah will be divorced or widowed she will have to return the money to A or take an oath to the effect that A deposited the money with her on condition that she return it upon his wife's consent only.
SOURCES: L. 306–7; Mord. B. K. 89. Cf. Pr. 739; Tesh. Maim. to Mishpatim, 44.