Benny worked as a contractor. He was currently doing extensive renovations for one of his suppliers, Shapiro’s Supplies. One day Benny got a call from Mr. Shapiro. “What’s doing?”

“Baruch Hashem,” replied Benny. “I expect to finish your job in two months.”

“That’s good to hear,” said Mr. Shapiro, “but there’s an issue I want to settle with you. You have an unpaid bill from last year.”

“What do you mean?” asked Benny, surprised. “I’m sure that I’m up to date with payments.”

“There’s an invoice signed by you with no record of payment, neither on the bill nor in any of our other records,” said Mr. Shapiro. “I asked you a few times for payment; I’m sure that it’s not paid.”

“I remember that I paid you that bill in cash one Friday afternoon,” said Benny. “You scribbled a receipt, which is buried somewhere in my papers.”

“If you have proof, fine,” said Mr. Shapiro. “But otherwise — you know that our policy, stated clearly on all invoices, is that claims of payment are accepted only with presentation of evidence. The bill is already months overdue, and I’d like it paid.”

“I’ll check my files, but we moved office last week, and many papers are still in boxes,” said Benny. “It will take some time to file all the papers and find the receipt. Anyway, what’s your rush for the money? In two months I’ll be finished with the renovations. If I owe you, we’ll cancel out payment.”

“I need the payment now,” demanded Mr. Shapiro. “You’ll get paid for the renovations when you finish, according to contract, but I want that bill settled already!”

“I’m strapped for cash right now,” Benny responded. “To pay that bill would require me to sell off stocks, which I really don’t want to do.”

“I’m also having trouble with my cash flow,” argued Mr. Shapiro. “It’s my right to demand immediate payment!”

Mr. Shapiro summoned Benny to a din Torah before Rabbi Dayan, demanding immediate payment of the bill.

•   •   •

“There are two questions here: the potential evidence and the counterdebt,” said Rabbi Dayan. “When the debtor claims that he has witnesses or documentation that will be available only after 30 days, if there is no loss entailed in paying now and later revoking the ruling and returning the money, we do so.

“However, if the debtor will suffer some loss in paying now, or if there is concern that he will not be able to get back his payment later,” continued Rabbi Dayan, “we wait and do not make him pay, provided that proof of payment will be procured in a reasonable time. If the evidence won’t be available for a year or two, though, we require him to pay now, even if there is a potential loss. The details are left to the discretion of beis din” (C.M. 24:1; Aruch Hashulchan 24:3).

“What about the counterdebt?” asked Benny.

“In principle, when two people owe each other, each one is entitled to collect according to the terms of the respective obligations,” replied Rabbi Dayan. “If both debts are already due, in many circumstances the obligations can cancel each other out. However, if one is due and the other is not, payment can be demanded now for the one that is due” (C.M. 85:3; Pischei Choshen, Halvaah 4:27[59]).

“Even though beis din usually gives 30 days before enforcing collection from assets,” concluded Rabbi Dayan, “a person cannot delay payment if he is able to pay immediately, even on the expectation of a counterdebt” (C.M. 100:2; Pischei Choshen, Halvaah 3:2).

I received a hazmanah (summons) to appear before beis din. The hazmanah did not specify the nature of the claim. I would like to prepare for the din Torah and cannot do so without knowing the nature and contents of the claim.

Q: Do I have the right to ask for details regarding the claim?

A: A hazmanah must identify to the respondent the claimant so that he may consider whether he should take action to appease the claimant and decide whether and how to respond (Ritva, M.K. 16a). Poskim debate whether the hazmanah must include the nature of the claim.

The Gemara (B.B. 31a) rules that one who discusses his case with the other litigant outside of beis din may change his claims when he makes his claim before beis din. The fact that he did not mention these new claims in previous discussions with the other litigant is not relevant, since people commonly do not reveal their real claims outside of beis din to inhibit the other litigant from being able to properly prepare his response. A litigant can even submit claims that are the diametric opposite of the claims he mentioned to the other litigant outside of beis din, provided that he did not make a binding admission (hodaah) before witnesses (C.M. 80:1 with Shach 4).

Be’er Sheva (54) and Shvus Yaakov (1:143) infer from this that a claimant is not obligated to reveal the nature of his claims to the respondent. Therefore, a respondent may not make his agreement to appear before beis din contingent on knowing the details of the claim against him.

Shach (11:1) disagrees and writes that the respondent may refuse to comply until he is informed of the details of the case. He may claim that, if informed of the nature of the claim, he may choose to pay what is owed rather than have to appear before beis din. However, if the claimant states how much he is claiming and the respondent requests more details about the origin and nature of the claim, the claimant is not obligated to divulge that information since that information could help the respondent prepare lies to deny the veracity of the claim (Urim V’tumim 13:1).

According to this opinion, the allowance for the claimant to present in beis din different claims from those that were made before he appeared in beis din does not imply that the respondent can be compelled to appear before beis din without knowing the basis of the claims against him (Chacham Tzvi 169).

Later authorities write that nowadays, although a summons may be issued without details of the claim, if the respondent refuses to appear until he is told the nature of the claim, his request is honored. This is especially true when appearing before beis din will incur expenses (Pischei Teshuvah 11:4 and Divrei Geonim 42:5).

It must be emphasized that even if a summons does not include details of the claim, one may not ignore the summons. Even if one is incapable of appearing before beis din, one must respond to the hazmanah and explain that he will not appear and why, whether it is because he insists on knowing the details of the claim or for any other reason. Ignoring a claim represents lawless behavior, and beis din is empowered to ban a person for such behavior (Aruch Hashulchan 11:2 based on Rema 11:1).

Q: What is the rationale for sharing profits equally, despite unequal shares of invested capital?

A: Some apply this ruling only to business ventures that require the entire joint capital invested, such as buying a house or a single ox, so that each partner is dependent on the other’s investment. However, if quantities of merchandise were acquired, and each party could have done business individually on a lesser scale, the profits are shared proportional to the investment (Sma 176:15).

Others explain that since the major partner did not stipulate receiving a proportional share of the profits, this indicates his willingness to share the profits equally. Perhaps he recognized the other partner as a savvy, worthwhile partner despite his lesser capital. Or, conversely, the minor partner was willing to risk an equal share in the losses, in order to gain an equal share in the profits (Levush 176:5).

Others explain that the two partners are required to work equally, so that the profits — which are a result of their efforts — should be shared equally (Nesivos 176:8).