I contacted a beis din to send a hazmanah (summons) to someone who owes me money. He responded that he is not interested in going to beis din and wishes to exercise his right to zabl”a.

Q: Could you explain the difference between beis din and zabl”a? Additionally, does he have the right to choose zabl”a as a venue rather than beis din?

A: When someone has a claim against another, he must present his claim to beis din. When there is a beis din in a city that was empowered by the residents (beis din kavua) or if a person is a member of a kehillah that has a beis din (Shevet HaLevi 8:302), he must comply with that beis din’s summons and may not choose zabl”a (C.M. 3:1) unless both parties agree to that venue (Shev Yaakov, C.M. 1).

When there is no beis din kavua, which is generally the case in the U.S. (Igros Moshe, C.M. 2:3, cf. Shevet HaLevi, ibid.), one cannot force the other party to appear before a particular beis din and the respondent can ask for the disagreement to be adjudicated via zabl”a. The term zabl”a is an acronym for the words “zeh borer lo echad” — he chooses one [judge].

Zabl”a involves each litigant choosing a dayan, and those two dayanim choosing the third dayan to form an ad hoc beis din. The advantage of this venue is that it is likely to generate the most truthful decision. The judges will advocate strongly for the litigant that chose him to make sure that every angle that could support that litigant’s claim will be presented, and the third impartial judge will cast the deciding vote in favor of the position that was strongest. Furthermore, each litigant will be confident that his dayan advocated for him and submitted whatever argument could have been presented, and consequently, the litigants will be more receptive to beis din’s decision (C.M. 13:1; Sema 5, 6).

[The right to demand zabl”a may be exercised even if it entails additional expenses for the other litigant, provided that the additional expenses are not exorbitant and the intent is to generate a true judgment (Igros Moshe, C.M. 2:7). Other authorities do not differentiate whether zabl”a generates a significant increase in expenses or not (Minchas Yitzchak 3:131).]

It must emphasized that even when utilizing zabl”a, a dayan may not introduce arguments unless those arguments are true. He may not attempt to influence the other dayan with false arguments, since this involves corrupting justice (Tur 13:8).

It is also prohibited for one of the litigants to present his case to his chosen dayan before the zabl”a convenes (Panim Meiros 2:159, cited by Pischei Teshuvah 13:3; Urim V’Tumim 17:14). In fact, Panim Meiros protests this practice in unusually strong terms and adds that leaders must remove this stumbling block.

Some justify the practice based on the fact that both litigants accept the practice so that each party can discuss the case with his dayan (Kesef HaKodashim 17:5; Aruch Hashulchan 13:4). This justification may be correct when both parties agree to zabl”a. However, if one of the parties does not want to follow this path and prefers to present his case to dayanim who have not heard the litigants’ claims before convening, it is clear that he cannot be forced into such a circumstance. Rema’s comment that zabl”a is preferred to an ad hoc beis din refers to one that does not have the above-mentioned shortcomings, which is quite rare (Shevet HaLevi 8:302; Seder Hadin 2:[83]).