Translation:Shulchan Aruch/Choshen Mishpat/25

Paragraph 1- If a judged erred in a monetary case on a matter that is well known, like laws that are explicit in the mishnah, gemara or poskim, the ruling is retracted and they judge properly. ''However, there are those that say that if it appears to the judge and others in his generation, based on compelling proofs, that the correct law is not as is mentioned in the poskim, he may argue with them because it is not something from the gemara. Nevertheless, one cannot be lenient on a matter that most of the Jewish people are stringent about unless he has a tradition from his teachers not to practice this stringency.'' If it is impossible to retract, such as where the party that took the money inappropriately is now overseas, the party was strong, the judge made something that was pure, impure or he ruled that something kosher was not kosher and it was fed to the dogs or anything similar, the judge is not obligated to pay. Although he caused the damage, he did not have the intention to do so. ''There are those that disagree. With respect to ruling on whether something is permitted or not permitted, once a person has reached the status of being able to rule, he is considered an expert even if he does not have semicha. See yoreh deah Siman 242 regarding semicha in the modern era.'' Paragraph 2- If a judge erred on a judgement call, such as a matter which was disputed by the taanaim or amoraim without a clear ruling whom the halacha follows, and he followed one of them without knowing that the worldwide custom was like the other, and the judge is an expert with permission from the Reish Galusa or in a case where the parties accepted him, even without permission, the ruling is retracted since he is an expert. If it is impossible to retract, the judge is exempt from paying. ''Three laymen have the status of a solo expert. See the end of Siman 3 for how permission from the king can help. A person should not say I will rule however I see fit on a matter that is a dispute. If he does so, this is a false ruling, unless he is a great scholar and knows how decide based on proofs, in which case he may day so. If he is not of that stature, he cannot take away money when in doubt because anytime there is a doubt in the law, we do not take away money from its current possessor. If the issue is a matter of whether something is permitted or not, he should be stringent on a biblical matter and lenient on a rabbinical matter. This is only where the disagreement is between equals. We do not, however, rely on the words of an inferior against someone greater than him in wisdom or number, even if it was a pressing matter, unless there was a great loss at sake. Similarly, wherever an individual opposes the majority, we follow the majority. Even if the majority does not have the same rationale and they each have their own reasoning, since they agree on the law, they are considered the majority and we must follow them. If the city had a custom to be lenient because they received such a ruling from a scholar, they may follow his view. If another scholar comes and prohibits that which they allowed, they should be stringent. Any situation where the earlier opinions are documented and well-known and the later poskim disagree with them, as we sometimes find the poskim arguing with the geonim, we follow the later ones because the law is always like the later ones from the time of Abaye and onward. If, however, one finds a responsa from a Gaon which was not documented and he finds others that disagree, he does not have to rule like the later ones because it is possible that they did not know of the Gaon’s view and had they heard it they would have retracted.''

Paragraph 3- If the judge who erred was an expert who did not receive permission and was not accepted by the parties or if the judge was not an expert and was accepted by the parties, and he erred on a judgement call, and he physically transferred the item, what’s done is done and he must pay out of pocket. If he did not physically transfer the item, the ruling is retracted. If it is impossible to retract, he must pay out of pocket. ''There are those that say that even in a case where he did not physically transfer the item, what’s done is done, he must pay out of pocket and the ruling is not retracted. This is all with respect to a case where they did not accept him for both a correct ruling and an error. If, however, they accepted him for both a correct ruling and an error or in today’s age where the public uses a cherem to force people to be judged, they do not have to pay because what else could they have done. Nonetheless, they should still retract if they erred and if they don’t want to they must pay. When there is an error and the judges pay, if the ruling was unanimous, they all must pay. If there were three judges and they ruled like two of them, they will pay 2/3 and the party will lose the remaining third. If there were five judges, and they ruled like three of them, they must pay the entire amount.''

Paragraph 4- However, in a case where the judge is not an expert and the parties did not accept him, he is considered a person who uses force and he is not a judge, even if he received permission. Therefore, his rulings are not valid, regardless of whether or not he erred. Either one of the parties can void the ruling and be judged in front of a court. If he erred and physically handed over the item, he must pay out of pocket and then take the item from the party who received it inappropriately. If he is unable to get it back, if he made something impure or he fed something that was permitted to the dogs, he must pay like any other person who causes damage because he had intention to damage.

Paragraph 5- If a judge erred and obligated an oath to someone who was not required to swear, causing the party to compromise with his adversary to avoid the oath, and then later the party realized that he did not have to swear, the compromise is meaningless even if they made a kinyan because it was a kinyan in error which one may retract. ''The same applies to anything similar. This is only where the party indicated that his reasoning behind the compromise was because of the oath or something similar.''