Sif
הלכה א
על כמה דנין. ובו סעיף אחד:אין הדיינים יושבים לדון בדין פחות משוה פרוטה ואם הוזקקו לשוה פרוטה גומרים דינם אפי' לפחות משוה פרוטה:
משנה ברורה
1.
The Judges do not hold a judicial session [on account of a claim] less than a <i>Perutah's</i> worth.<sup class="footnote-marker">1</sup><i class="footnote">B.M. 55a: ‘Levi taught in his Baraitha collection … A Court session is convened on account of a <i>Perutah’s</i> worth’ (If one admits liability or there are witnesses to substantiate this admission, and payment is nevertheless refused, a Court session may be held in order to compel the debtor to pay). For in the case of robbery of less than a <i>Perutah</i>’s worth, it is not considered ‘money’ (Gemara <i>ibid.</i>) — <i>M.E.</i> In the case of a claim of vessels, however, the Court meets even if less than a <i>Perutah’s</i> worth is involved. , <i>infra</i> § 88, 3. Thus also <i>RaN</i> to Sheb. VI, <i>R. Yeruḥam; Maim</i>. Yad, <i>To‘en we-Nit‘an</i> III, 5. Others oppose this view and maintain that even in the case of vessels a Court session meets only when at least a <i>Perutah’s</i> worth is involved, for less than that is not considered ‘money’ — <i>ShaK. Tummim</i> states that <i>Shitah Mekubeẓeth</i> writes on the authority of <i>RITBA</i> (to B.M. <i>ibid.</i>) that if the claim concerns an object that is still extant, a Court session may meet for this purpose, even if it involves a claim of less than a <i>Perutah</i>’s worth. It is only when payment is demanded that it must involve at least a <i>Perutah</i>’s worth. In the case of two partners who have a claim against an individual in the amount of a <i>Perutah</i>, the law is that although the claim involves only half a <i>Perutah</i> with respect to each partner, yet, since the claim of the partners as a whole involves at least a <i>Perutah</i>’s worth, we may hold a Court session therefor. This would not apply to two individuals (not partners) who together have a claim of a <i>Perutah</i>’s worth against the same party — <i>P.Tesh., A.H.</i> If one person has a claim of a <i>Perutah</i>’s worth against two people, a judicial session may be held therefor, since with respect to the plaintiff the claim is regarded as ‘money’ — <i>A.H.</i> If the Court held a session for a claim that involved less than a <i>Perutah</i>’s worth, such Court has the jurisdiction of a <i>Beth Din</i> insofar as admissions made in their presence are considered binding. Likewise with respect to one who was found to be a liar at such a session, the law is that he remains under such presumption — <i>Nethiboth</i>.</i> However, if they met [on account of a claim of] a <i>Perutah's</i> worth, they may conclude their trial even for [a claim] less than a <i>Perutah's</i> worth.<sup class="footnote-marker">2</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Tur</i> citing <i>Maim.</i> Yad, <i>Sanhedrin</i> XX, 11 in accord with R. Kattina (B.M. <i>ibid.</i>): ‘The above text states: R. Kattina said: The Court holds sessions even for less than a <i>Perutah</i>’s worth. Raba raised an objection: <i>And he shall make amends for the harm that he hath done in the holy thing</i> (Lev. V, 16), this (redundant <i>and</i>) extends the law of making amends even to less than a <i>Perutah</i>’s worth. Hence, it applies only to <i>Hekdesh</i> but not to <i>Ḥullin!</i> (i.e., only in the case of sacred objects amends should be made even regarding less than a <i>Perutah</i>’s worth, but not in secular objects. In the latter case one may be compelled to restore aught that involves at least a <i>Perutah</i>’s worth) — But if it was said, it was said thus: R. Kattina stated, If the Court met for a claim of a <i>Perutah</i>’s worth, they may conclude (the case) even for less (i.e., if for some reason the claim was reduced to less than a <i>Perutah</i>’s worth), (because) at the commencement of the trial a <i>Perutah</i> must be involved, but at the conclusion a (claim of a) <i>Perutah</i>’s worth is not necessary.’ This latter statement viz., that ‘at the commencement of the trial … not necessary,’ should be understood as follows: Even if the defendant after the verdict is rendered puts forth a claim against the plaintiff which involves less than a <i>Perutah</i>’s worth, the Judges may conclude the trial even for this amount, the reason being that it is all regarded as one trial, for if the defendant is legally proven to be justified in his claim, he may deduct whatever is owing to him from the plaintiff’s claim. Thus <i>Rashi ibid.</i> and <i>Kesef Mishneh</i> to Yad <i>ibid.</i> It is for this reason that <i>Caro</i> in the present ruling states, ‘and they may conclude <i>their</i> trial,’ whereas <i>Maim. ibid.</i> has ‘and they may conclude <i>his</i> trial’ — <i>M.E.</i> , B.M. <i>ibid., Tosaf</i>. s.v. <span>ותנא דידן</span>; <i>W.G.</i> and <i>Be’er Eliyahu</i> a.l. <i>M.E.</i> adopts the ruling of <i>Asheri contra Maim.</i>, that even if they hold a session for a <i>Perutah</i>’s worth, they may not conclude the proceedings for less than a <i>Perutah</i>’s worth. If for some reason the plaintiff’s original claim is reduced to less than a <i>Perutah</i> and at the conclusion of the trial the plaintiff puts forth another claim of less than a <i>Perutah</i>’s worth, according to some, even <i>Asheri</i> will hold that the trial may be concluded, because both claims are combined. <i>BaḤ</i>, however, disagrees with this — <i>P.Tesh</i>.</i>
Mishnah Berurah