Can You Sue a Jew?

Now even though the Sages have mentioned these two groups [the layman and the Canaanite] together, there is a difference between them, in that if the two litigants are willing to come before an Israelite who is a layman, and accept him upon themselves, it is permissible for them to do so, and they must abide by his decision, but to come before the Canaanites to act as judges between them, is forbidden under all circumstances, even if the Canaanite laws are in that particular case the same as our laws.

Regarding the prohibition to litigate in the courts of Gentiles: It is clear that it is prohibited to litigate in courts of Gentiles, even though their laws are like our laws, and this is a Biblical prohibition as we learned in the Baraisa in Perek HaMigareish.

Anyone who litigate in the courts of Gentiles, even if their laws are like the laws of Israel, is a wicked person . . . And there are in these laws Rabbinic enactments, based on the negative commandment of "Do not deviate."

It is forbidden to appear for trial before heathen Judges and in their Courts of Law, i.e., [the locality wherein] permanent judicial sessions are held by the [civil] magistrates, even regarding a lawsuit that they [the heathen Judges] adjudicate like the Israelite Law. Even if the two litigants agreed to be tried before them, it is forbidden. And whosoever appears for trial before them is considered a wicked person and is as though he blashphemed, reproached and rebelled against the Law of Moses. Gloss: The [Israelite] Court of Law has the authority to pronounce against him the less severe [Niddui] and [even] the more severe [Herem] ban until he suspends the [legal] rights [which he delegated to] the heathen [authorities] from upon his fellow [-litigant]. Likewise, is the ban pronounced against him who strengthens the hand[s] of the one who goes to law before a heathen [Court]. And even if he does not go to law before a heathen [Court] but compels him [his adversary] by means of a heathen [Court], he is fit to be laid out on the post [for a flogging]. One who resorted to heathen Courts and was pronounced guilty by their laws, and then he [the guilty person] summoned him [his fellow-litigant] again before Israelite Judges, — some say that we do not attend to his [case]; while others say that we do attend to his [case] unless he was the cause of a loss to his fellow-litigant before the heathen [Courts]. However, the former opinion seems to me to be fundamental.

And all of this is so even if their laws are like our laws, and standing before their is nothing but a testament to the supremacy of their beliefs. However, if their laws are not like our owns, it is a simple matter that it is prohibited, and one who litigates before them is a robber, and is invalid to offer testimony until he repays what he took from his opponent not in accordance with our laws, even though he prevailed under their laws. And this matter is so simple it is not necessary to write. And if he betrothed a woman with that money which he acquired through their laws that were unlike our own, the woman is not betrothed, for we do not establish the law like R' Shimon who says that generally in cases of robbery the owner despairs of recovering their object [thus effecting a transfer of property], as it is brought down in the chapter HaIsh Mekadesh (52b).

. . .

And in [the Sheiltos on] Parshas Shoftim it writes, from where do we know that a Jew and a Gentile that have a dispute and dealing with each other that it is forbidden to say to the Gentile, come with me to the Gentile courts, that he violates a prohibition? For it says "He did not do so for other nations."

"From where is this matter derived whereby people say: If you called to your friend and he did not answer you, throw a large wall and cast it at him? Rabba bar Mari said to him that the source is as it is written: 'Because I have purged you and you were not purged, you shall not be purged from your impurity anymore, until I have satisfied My fury upon you'” (Ezekiel 24:13). From here ruled R. Paltoi Gaon of blessed memory: Reuven that has a claim against Shimon, who refuses to litigate with him [in a Jewish court], [Reuven] is permitted to bring [Shimon] to courts of Gentiles in order to remove that which is [Reuven's] from the hand of [Shimon].

[If] the hand of the Gentiles was powerful, and his fellow-litigant is a stern individual [refusing a summons to a Jewish Court] and [the claimant] cannot retrieve [his claim] from him through Jewish Judges, he should summon [the defendant] before Israelite Judges first. If he refuses to appear, [then] he obtains permission from the [Jewish] Court of Law and retrieves [his claim] through heathen Courts from his fellow-litigant. Gloss: The Jewish Court has the right to go before the heathen [Courts] and testify that this party is guilty to that party. This [ruling is applicable] only when [the recalcitrant person] refuses to heed the [Jewish] Court, but otherwise the [Jewish] Court is forbidden to give permission to appear for trial before a heathen [Court].

A document that is written on it that it can be claimed in the courts of Gentile, it is not permitted to do so as I have written in the previous paragraph. And if he did claim it there, or gave the note there, he is required to repay the excess of what he would have been able to collect in Beis Din. If the Respondent incurred costs, he is required to return them. All of this is where he was able to collect from the debtor in Beis Din, but if the Respondent refused to come to Beis Din then they should give him permission [to proceed to courts of Gentiles], as I wrote in paragraph 2. But, if [the Respondent] says he wishes to litigate in front of another Beis Din and not this one, if this is not a stalling tactic as understood by the Beis Din, then the claimant must go with him to the other Beis Din.

... And it further appears that when a Jew litigates with a Gentile, it is permitted to give testimony. However, where a Jew litigates with his fellow it it prohibited to give testimony, even if it is proper, for he is aiding one violating a prohibition. And even though there is no issue of lifnei iver (putting a stumbling block in front of a blind man) since even without the witness he can perform the prohibition, nonetheless it is rabbinically prohibited.