It is recommended that he not pass judgment except in the presence of the witnesses. His judgment in his own favor, or in favor of anyone whose testimony he would not accept in that person’s favor, is not enforceable. If someone brings a claim against a woman who does not ordinarily appear in public, she need not appear in person; rather, she should be instructed to appoint a representative. If an oath is required of her, he should send someone to administer the oath to her. The same applies to a sick person.

His statement, “It is recommended that he not pass judgment except in the presence of the witnesses”: It is recommended for the judge not to pass judgment except in the witnesses’ presence, though he may pass judgment in their absence. Thus, if they give their testimony and he passes judgment while they are absent, there is no problem. However, it is preferable that he pass judgment only in their presence, because the witnesses are the means by which a judgment is reached and the right is established. Were it not for their testimony, he would not pass judgment. Therefore, his judgment should be issued while they are present.

Moreover, this is more precise, so that he does not deviate one way or the other, for he may forget some part of the testimony. It is also more likely to ensure that the witnesses remain accountable for their testimony, since some witnesses may have given false testimony; when such a witness sees that a judgment is about to be established on the basis of his testimony, he may perhaps retract it.

These, then, are three reasons why it is recommended for the witnesses to be present when the judge passes judgment.

His statement, “His judgment in his own favor is not enforceable”: A judge’s judgment in his own favor is not accepted. How could a judge pass judgment in his own favor?

The answer is that, for example, he may have a dispute with someone and say, “You and I will litigate before me, and I will judge the matter myself.” This is not valid. If, however, the opposing party agrees and says, “You are the arbitrator, despite being involved in the dispute,” then this is permissible, because the right belongs to him. Such cases do sometimes arise: the judge’s opponent may trust the judge and say, “You are the arbitrator, and I trust your integrity, religious commitment, and knowledge.” If he agrees to this, there is no objection.

His statement, “or in favor of anyone whose testimony he would not accept in that person’s favor”: Such as his father, his child, or his wife. He may not pass judgment in their favor, because a judicial ruling—as has already been explained—