Rubin’s Retail received a letter of claim from Gross Suppliers demanding payment for a shipment of merchandise. Mr. Rubin sighed. “I’ve already explained to them three times that I don’t owe them for that order,” he said to himself.

Mr. Rubin contacted his lawyer. “We received an official letter from Gross Suppliers about the questionable order,” he said. “Please respond with an official letter of denial. If this keeps up, I’m going to seriously consider switching suppliers.”

A month later, Mr. Rubin received a summons to Rabbi Dayan’s beis din regarding the disputed claim of Mr. Gross.

The case proved more complex than it initially seemed, and litigation carried on for a number of sessions. The Dayanim tried numerous times to achieve a compromise, but the two sides were adamant.

Rabbi Dayan and his colleagues deliberated the issue. The halachah clearly was in favor of Mr. Gross; payment was due for the shipment, even though the order was not handled in the ideal manner. However, the sum owed was a drop in the bucket for Mr. Gross but a significant amount for Mr. Rubin. Paying the full amount due was liable to threaten the viability of his store, which was already in a precarious financial position.

The Dayanim reached the conclusion that Mr. Rubin was legally liable for the full sum. Rabbi Dayan issued the ruling to the parties.

After issuing the ruling, Rabbi Dayan called Mr. Gross into his private office. “You are entitled to full payment,” he said to Mr. Gross. “However, for the benefit of your ongoing business relationship, and on account of Mr. Rubin’s difficult financial circumstances, I would advise you to suffice with 75% of the amount.”

“If I am entitled to collect the full amount, why should I settle for 75%?” asked Mr. Gross. “Anyway, the time for mediation was before we came to beis din. Isn’t the role of beis din to rule?”

“The Gemara (Sanhedrin 6b) teaches that beis din should offer the option of compromise as a means of bringing peace, and can sometimes even impose one,” replied Rabbi Dayan. “Once the verdict has been issued, though, the Dayanim cannot impose a compromise. That would be an injustice. If they were to do so, some consider it a ta’us bidvar mishnah (blatant misruling), which is null and void” (C.M. 12:3).

“Tosafos maintain that once the judge knows what the ruling is, he should no longer advocate compromise,” continued Rabbi Dayan. “However, the Shulchan Aruch and Shach (12:4) rule that until the verdict is issued, the Dayan can still advocate compromise, since it is a mitzvah to achieve a peaceful resolution. This is especially true nowadays when the arbitration agreement explicitly empowers the beis din to rule or compromise.”

“But you already issued the ruling! Why are you suggesting that I compromise?” asked Mr. Gross.

“The Shulchan Aruch (C.M. 12:6) writes that one who is not a Dayan can mediate even after the ruling has been issued,” replied Rabbi Dayan. “This should be done outside the beis din. The Shach (12:6) is even more lenient and maintains that if the Dayanim do not impose the compromise upon the litigants in an authoritative capacity but rather gently persuade them, they are also allowed to do so. Most authorities do not accept this, but some still allow words of advice.”

A story is told of the Chazon Ish, who ruled in favor of a landlord. Afterward he said, “Although you are right, you should let him off” (Pischei Teshuvah 12:5; Moznaim Lamishpat; Mishpetei Tzedek 12:2; Maaseh Ish, vol. 5, p. 30).