This section introduces the question of whether a דיין may act on information that he believes to be true even when it does not meet the formal evidentiary requirements of הלכה, beginning with רבא’s reliance on the statement of בת רב חסדא.

This section presents סעיף ד׳ of the שולחן ערוך, which addresses a דין מרומה where the defendant is deceptive, and explains how the מחבר combines the approaches of the רמב״ם and רא״ש by tailoring the דיין’s response to the circumstances and to his own level of judicial expertise.

This section presents the ruling of the שולחן ערוך in סעיף ג׳ on a דין מרומה: the דיין must investigate extensively, but if serious suspicion remains and the deception appears to come from the claimant, he must withdraw from the case and may even prevent the claimant from simply taking the same fraudulent claim to another בית דין.

This section summarizes the two approaches to דין מרומה and explains how the טור combines them: first the דיין investigates to determine whether deception exists, and if suspicion remains, his next step depends on whether the suspected dishonesty comes from the claimant or the defendant.

This section presents the רא״ש’s striking ruling that when a deceptive defendant deliberately refuses to answer questions that would reveal the truth, an expert דיין may treat that refusal as compelling circumstantial evidence and rule on the basis of אומדנא דמוכח (a strongly demonstrated inference).

This section continues the famous responsum of the רא״ש in כלל ק״ז סימן ו׳, showing how the דיינים recognized that the defendant was concealing the truth and why, in such a דין מרומה, they were required to press the investigation rather than allow him to benefit from evasive answers.

This section introduces the famous responsum of the רא״ש in כלל ק״ז סימן ו׳, describing an extraordinarily protracted dispute that moved repeatedly between Jewish and non-Jewish courts until the queen herself instructed the רא״ש to take the case and attempt to reach a truthful judgment.

This section presents the רא״ש’s alternative resolution of the two גמרות on דין מרומה: if the suspected deception comes from the claimant, the דיין should dismiss the case; if it comes from the defendant, the דיין must investigate further so that the dishonest defendant does not benefit from his deception.

This section presents the רמב״ם’s resolution of the two גמרות on דין מרומה: first the דיין must investigate through דרישה וחקירה, but if serious doubt remains even after investigation, he may not rule and must withdraw from the case.

This section introduces a second source on דין מרומה from מסכת שבועות, where the דיין is forbidden to rely mechanically on testimony that he believes to be false, and highlights the apparent difference between this source and the גמרא in סנהדרין regarding what the דיין should actually do.