then the judge may rebuke him and may, for example, ask the police officer to punish him, or something of that sort.

His statement, “and in their seating before him”: that is, the two litigants should be treated alike in how near they sit to him and in the type of seat on which they sit. He must not give one preference over the other. Thus, it is not permissible for him to have one sit closer than the other, or for one to sit on a luxurious cushion while the other sits on an ordinary mat.

His statement, “and in their entering upon him”: he must not admit one before the other; rather, they should enter together. Thus, if one of them stands at the door, he should not say to him, “Please enter, so-and-so,” unless one litigant gives the other precedence. As for the judge himself admitting one before the other, this is not permissible, because it is contrary to justice. There is no doubt that this is a setting of justice, and if justice is violated in such a place, it may lead to the invalidation of the argument of one who has a valid case and to the victory of one who has no valid case. Therefore, justice is obligatory.

If the doorway can only accommodate one person, they should draw lots, unless one of them chooses to let the other go first, for the right belongs to them both.

If it is said, “Should we not give precedence to the elder?” We say: No. This is a setting of justice, so precedence is not given to the elder, the closer relative, the more honorable, or the lower-ranking person. Rather, we say: You both have the right either to enter together or to settle the matter between yourselves.

Issue: If one of them is the first to greet the judge with the greeting of peace, should he return the greeting, or wait until the other greets him?

The answer is: He should not wait; rather, he should return the greeting, because the one who greeted first gained this right through his own action, not through any action of the judge. It is preferable for the judge to deal with them both directly