choshen mishpatfeatured in 30 works

Kim Li ("I Hold Like" — Procedural Defense)

keem lee

A legal defense that lets someone invoke a minority opinion that favors them, even if most authorities disagree.

In Jewish law courts, when someone is accused or sued, they can say 'I rely on this minority view'—and that view can protect them. It's like saying, 'Yes, most legal experts think X, but this respected authority thinks Y, and I'm following Y instead.' The phrase *kim li* literally means 'I hold' or 'I adopt,' signaling that the defendant is choosing a particular interpretation of Jewish law.

This principle developed over centuries as Jewish legal scholars realized that their tradition contained genuine disagreements among the greatest minds. Rather than treating one answer as absolutely binding in every case, the courts recognized that someone could act on a legitimate alternative interpretation—particularly when it benefited the defendant. The idea reflects a practical wisdom: if multiple authoritative voices in your legal tradition support a position, you can stand on that ground in your own defense.

Kim li became especially important in later Jewish law (*Acharonic* period, roughly 16th century onward) and is fundamental to how Jewish civil law (*Choshen Mishpat*) actually works in practice. It balances the need for legal certainty with respect for the tradition's internal diversity.

How it traveled

Ketubot
Sura (Babylonia) · 500
explains
Sanhedrin
Sura (Babylonia) · 500
explains
Teshuvot HaGeonim (Harkavy)
Sura (Babylonia) · 900
explains
Mishneh Torah, Creditor and Debtor
Fostat (Old Cairo) · 1180
explains
Meiri on Bava Batra
Perpignan · 1300
explains
Meiri on Sanhedrin
Perpignan · 1300
explains
Meiri on Bava Metzia
Perpignan · 1300
explains
Meiri on Ketubot
Perpignan · 1300
explains
Teshuvot HaRosh
Toledo (Castile) · 1325
explains
Tur
Toledo (Castile) · 1335
explains
Sefer HaTashbetz
Tunis · 1430
explains
Nimukei Yosef on Bava Metzia
Spain (medieval) · 1450
explains
Nimukei Yosef on Bava Kamma
Spain (medieval) · 1450
explains
Terumat HaDeshen
Vienna · 1460
explains
Shulchan Arukh, Choshen Mishpat
Tzfat · 1565
explains
Avkat Rokhel
Tzfat · 1565
explains
Darkhei Moshe
Krakow (Cracow) · 1570
explains
Siftei Kohen on Shulchan Arukh, Choshen Mishpat
Vilna (Vilnius) · 1646
explains
Turei Zahav on Shulchan Arukh, Choshen Mishpat
Lviv (Lemberg) · 1646
explains
Be'er HaGolah on Shulchan Arukh, Choshen Mishpat
Vilna (Vilnius) · 1671
explains
Beit Shmuel
Frankfurt am Main · 1689
explains
Ba'er Hetev on Shulchan Arukh, Choshen Mishpat
Prague · 1700
explains
Sheilat Yaavetz
— · 1728
explains
Penei Yehoshua on Ketubot
Frankfurt am Main · 1730
explains
Penei Yehoshua on Bava Metzia
Frankfurt am Main · 1730
explains
Ba'er Hetev on Shulchan Arukh, Even HaEzer
Prague · 1742
explains
Beur HaGra on Shulchan Arukh, Choshen Mishpat
Vilna (Vilnius) · 1780
explains
Beit Meir on Shulchan Arukh, Even HaEzer
Frankfurt am Main · 1787
explains
Haggahot Imrei Barukh on Shulchan Arukh, Choshen Mishpat
Leipnik (Lipník nad Bečvou) · 1820
explains
Chokhmat Shlomo on Shulchan Arukh, Choshen Mishpat
Brody · 1855
explains

Key passages(20)

Siftei Kohen on Shulchan Arukh, Choshen Mishpat.126 43:2↗explains

Siftei Kohen on Shulchan Arukh, Choshen Mishpat · Shabbatai HaKohen (Shach) · 1638 CE