Йехезкэля 24:13 Галаха: Shulchan Arukh, Choshen Mishpat

[If] the hand of the heathen [Judges] was powerful, and his fellow-litigant is a stern individual [refusing to appear for trial in a Jewish Court] and he [the claimant] cannot retrieve [his claim] from him through Israelite Judges, — [then] he should summon him [the recalcitrant defendant] before Israelite Judges first.¹⁴Yad, Sanhedrin XXVI, 7. Thus also Tur a.o. Derived from B.K. 92b: ‘Whence do we derive the saying, When you have called your neighbour (cautioning him), and he would not answer, push down a big wall and throw it at him (he deserves to suffer)? — He answered: For it is written, Because I have purged thee and thou wast not purged, thou shalt not be purged from thy filthiness any more (Ez. XXIV, 13).’ Mishna Git. 88b (ref. to a Get given under compulsion): ‘However, the heathen authorities may beat a man and say to him, Do what the Israelitish (authorities) command you.’ If he refuses to appear, — [then] he obtains permission from the [Jewish] Court of Law and retrieves [his claim] through heathen Courts from the hand of his fellow-litigant¹⁵Provided two witnesses state that he refuses to appear in Court, for in order to exact money two witnesses are required — Tummim. This ruling is applicable only where the Court of Law knows that the defendant is legally guilty, e.g., where the claimant produces a note of indebtedness. But where the Court does not know whether the defendant is guilty, e.g., in the case of a verbal loan, — then the Court gives the claimant permission to use means of compulsion through the heathen Courts in order that the defendant appear for trial before the Jewish Court of Law — Nethiboth. We do not permit him to summon the defendant before heathen Courts unless it is impossible to collect the claim by means of an Adrakta — Ba‘al ha-Terumoth.. Gloss: The [members of the Jewish] Court of Law have the right to go before the heathen [Courts] and bear testimony that this party is guilty to that party.¹⁶Ba‘al ha-Terumoth on the authority of R. Sherira Gaon — G. Cf. B.K. 113b-114a: ‘Raba proclaimed or according to others, R. Huna: (Be it known to those) who go up to the Land of Israel and who come down from Babylonia that if a son of Israel knows evidence in favour of a heathen who did not call upon him (the Israelite to testify in his behalf) and (yet) went into a heathen Court and testified against a fellow-Israelite, they pronounce the Shammeta against him, the reason being that heathens exact money (even) on the testimony of a single witness. This applies only to a case of a single witness, but not if there were two.’ Hence, much more so in our present case where the Jewish Court of Law bears testimony on behalf of a fellow Israelite, it would be permissible. A.H. writes that this is applicable whether the claimant is Jewish or not. This entire [ruling is applicable] only when [the recalcitrant person] refuses to heed the [Jewish Court of] Law, but otherwise the [Jewish] Court of Law is forbidden to give [one] permission to appear for trial before a heathen [Court].¹⁷ supra par. 1.