Translation:Arukh ha-Shulchan/Choshen Mishpat/6

This chapter contains one section: 1

Section 1
The minimum monetary amount that the court is required to hear claims for is that of a pruta. Less than that is not considered monetary value in regards to repaying for a stolen or lost object. Whether or not a claim can be made for an actual object worth less than a pruta is the subject of a dispute which we be explained in chapter 88. If the court hears a case concerning a pruta of monetary value, the ruling can be for a fraction of a pruta. An example of this would be if the defendant admitted his liability of half a pruta or if he was exonerated and then countersued the claimant for half a pruta [NOT SURE WHY THIS ISN'T A SEPARATE CASE]. On one hand, there is a dissenting opinion that argues that the court never issues a ruling for a payment of less than a pruta. On the other hand, there is an opinion that if the case is over an actual physical object which is worth less than a pruta the case is nevertheless heard, and the pruta threshold pertains specifically to either monetary claims or claims over an object that no longer exists. If two business partners claim the value of a pruta from one individual the case is heard even though each will only receive half a pruta, as the legal partnership is considered the claimant. Therefore, two who are not legal partners cannot claim a pruta from one individual. However, if an individual claims a pruta from two people the case is heard, because from his point of view it is a case meeting the minimum. If the court does hear a case concerning an amount less than a pruta the case has the status of a real court case, including the recognition of admissions and applying the rules of presumption of criminal denial -'Huchzak Kafrun'.

ערוך השולחן חושן משפט ו