This section explains why, even where halachah may not formally require it, contemporary בתי דין should generally provide reasoned written decisions.

This section explains the final halachic ruling regarding when a בית דין must provide the reasoning or written record behind its פסק דין.

This section explains the opinion of the רא״ש (Rosh) and טור (Tur) regarding when a בית דין must provide the reasoning behind its ruling.

This section explains the opinion of the רמב״ן (Ramban) regarding when a בית דין must provide reasons for its ruling, and what exactly it must write when a litigant wants the ruling reviewed.

This section examines the apparent contradiction between the Gemara in Sanhedrin and the Gemara in Bava Metzia regarding when דיינים must provide the reasoning behind their decision.

This סעיף (se’if — paragraph) discusses when, if ever, a בית דין must provide the parties with the reasoning behind its judgment.

This סעיף (se’if — paragraph) discusses whether a litigant may choose between two local rabbinical judges when one דיין is greater than the other.

This סעיף (se’if — paragraph) explains how the parties’ written arguments should be presented when a local בית דין seeks guidance from a greater halachic authority, particularly when one litigant is a תלמיד חכם and the other is unlearned.

This section summarises the rules governing disputes over which rabbinical court should hear a case and explains how those rules are commonly applied in practice today.

Topic in one line: This section explains the Rema’s final point in se’if 1: when a litigant is so powerful or influential in his city that the local Beit Din may not be impartial, the case may be transferred to another city.