Purchase “From Rav’s Desk” Q&A’s 3 Volumes*
*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
Question:
I often hear the term “Zabla” used in halachic discussions. What exactly is a Zabla, and how does it work in practice?
Answer:
A Zabla (“Zeh Borer Lo Echad” — each side chooses one) is a form of Beis Din where each party selects one dayan, and those two dayanim jointly choose a third. The three then serve together as an equal panel to hear the case and issue a ruling. This option is generally used when there is no established Beis Din with authority in the area, or when both parties agree to proceed this way.
Explanation:
Zabla is an alternative framework for adjudicating disputes within halachah. Instead of going to a standing or pre-established Beis Din, the litigants themselves participate in forming the court.
The process works as follows: each side selects one qualified dayan whom they trust. These two selected dayanim then agree upon a third dayan to complete the panel of three. Once established, all three dayanim have equal authority in judging the case.
However, this option is not always available by default. Where there is a recognized, established Beis Din in a city that has the authority to compel litigants to appear before it, the defendant generally cannot insist on using a Zabla instead. Even if the established Beis Din is not composed of the most expert judges, its accepted status within the community grants it authority. Only if both parties mutually agree may they bypass that Beis Din and proceed with a Zabla.
On the other hand, in a place where there is no fixed Beis Din with enforcement authority—or where multiple batei din exist—Zabla may be used. Additionally, if a defendant refuses to appear before any court at all, even a standard panel of three unappointed laymen may compel him to submit to judgment. But if he is willing to be judged and merely insists on a Zabla framework, his request may be honored under appropriate circumstances.
The rationale behind Zabla is that each party feels represented and confident in the fairness of the process, since each selected one of the judges. This increases the likelihood that both sides will accept the final ruling. However, it is critical to emphasize that a dayan does not serve as an advocate for the party who selected him. Each dayan must judge objectively and may only rule according to what he sincerely believes is correct under halachah. Any attempt to distort judgment in favor of one side would constitute a serious violation.
Source:
Michaber C.M. 13:1 “If one of the litigants says, “So-and-so shall judge for me,” and the other litigant says, “So-and-so shall judge for me,” these two judges—each chosen by one side—select for themselves a third judge. The third judge does not need to be acceptable to the litigants, and all three together judge the case; through this process, the judgment will emerge truthfully. Even if the judge chosen by one litigant is a great scholar and ordained, he cannot force the other litigant to have the case judged solely before him; rather, the other litigant also chooses whomever he wishes. (Rama: Since each side selects one judge, the litigants will accept the ruling, and each judge will explore every possible argument in favor of the party who selected him within the bounds of halachah. The third judge hears both sides, and together they decide the truth (Tur).) If the two selected judges cannot agree on a third, the leaders of the city appoint one for them. If there are no such leaders, the plaintiff may go before three judges, and they may compel the defendant to be judged before them. Similarly, if the defendant acts deceptively by choosing an unfit judge in order to avoid sitting before a proper judge, he is compelled either to be judged before a proper panel of three or to select a qualified judge (as explained above in Siman 3).”; Rama C.M. 3:1; Mishneh Sanhedrin 23a following opinion of Chachamim; Encyclopedia Talmudit Erech Zabla Volume 11 p. 684