In the Gem. a woman was summoned for litigation before Ameimar in Nehardea. She failed to appear before him in Mechoza and he put her in cherem. Could one not have argued on her behalf that the summons specified 2 things; one that she was to appear before Ameimar and the second that she was to appear in Neherdea?! How then could she be put in Cherem because she ignored the court summons?
Kol Tuv,
alex lebovits, toronto, canada
The Meiri was bothered by your question, and says that in normal circumstances, someone summoned to Beis Din who finds that Beis Din are not in situ, is not obligated to seek out the Beis Din. He explains that our Gemara refers to a case where a Beis Din summoned the lady to appear in front of a more prestigious Beis Din in a different town. In such a case, the Meiri argues, the person summoned, upon finding that the Beis Din are not sitting in the place to which he has been summoned, is expected to realize that if the Beis Din which summoned him to appear in front of this Beis Din had known that this Beis Din would not be in this place, they would, without a doubt, have sent him to the place where the Beis Din are in fact situated, and is therefore obligated to seek out the Beis Din, wherever (within reason) it may be. Since this woman did not do so she was liable to the sanctions that the Beis Din laid on her.
The Meiri, however, brings others who are of the opinion that even in the case of a regular summons to Beis Din, it is up to the person summoned to follow the Beis Din to whichever place it may have gone to. In this case, we can assume that the woman was told where the Beis Din were, or was capable of discovering their whereabouts, and was therefore considered culpable for not following them.
Either way, in the case of the Gemara, we do not view the summons as meaning specifically this Dayan in this specific place, and the person summoned is expected to understand this.
Dov Freedman