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.

This section explains that although דרישה וחקירה (formal examination and interrogation of witnesses) is normally not required in monetary cases, it becomes necessary in a דין מרומה (a case suspected of fraud or deception), where the בית דין must investigate more deeply rather than rely only on the evidence as presented.

This section introduces the concept of דין מרומה (a suspected fraudulent case) and explains the background requirement of דרישה וחקירה (formal examination and interrogation of witnesses), which is essential for understanding how a דיין should respond when the evidence appears unreliable.

This section presents the שולחן ערוך’s hierarchy of which litigants receive priority in בית דין, examines whether the rule depends on whether they are claimants or defendants, and considers how these הלכות may apply in modern בתי דין.

This section examines the dispute among the אחרונים over the רמ״א’s ruling that even a relative of a תלמיד חכם (Torah scholar) may receive priority in בית דין, and presents the opposing view of the שבות יעקב and ברכי יוסף.

This section examines whether the special priority accorded to a תלמיד חכם (Torah scholar) in בית דין applies nowadays, and presents the dispute between the סמ״ע and other פוסקים on the status of contemporary Torah scholars.

This section presents the practical ruling of the שולחן ערוך and רמ״א on the order of cases before בית דין, including the priority of a תלמיד חכם, the status of his relative, and the סמ״ע’s definition of when a case is considered to have “come first.”