appointed him; thus, he has the status of the imam in that town, just as the imam does in every town. Since he has this status, he must appoint someone to deputize for him within the area under his jurisdiction. This differs from agency, for an agent may not appoint a sub-agent, according to the two reports, since he acts on behalf of his principal—as indicated by the principal’s right to dismiss him—whereas the imam may not dismiss the judge so long as he retains the stipulated qualifications.
If he is appointed over the entire town, he may adjudicate in any place within it. However, if the appointment contract stipulates a particular location for him to sit, whether his house or his mosque, the appointment is invalid, because his authority is general and he may not be restricted to a particular place of sitting.
If he is appointed to adjudicate between those who come to him in his house or mosque, the appointment is valid, but he may not adjudicate anywhere other than his house or mosque. This is because his authority has been confined to those who come to his house or mosque, and they are identifiable only by coming there.
If two judges are appointed over a town, then one of two situations applies. If one is assigned jurisdiction over a particular part of it and the other over the remainder, the appointment is valid, and each judge is restricted to adjudicating within his own area. Likewise, if one is assigned a particular category of cases and the other a different category—for example, debt disputes are assigned to one and marriage cases to the other—that is permissible, and each judge is restricted to adjudicating that particular type of case throughout the town.
If each judge is assigned jurisdiction over the entire town, it has been said that the appointment is invalid, because this would lead to disputes as the litigants were drawn toward the two judges. It has also been said that it is valid, since this is a delegation and is therefore analogous to agency. In the event that the litigants contend over which judge should hear the case, the claimant’s preference, rather than the respondent’s, is followed. If the two judges are equally preferred, the judge who is closer to the litigants is given precedence; if they are equally close, lots are drawn between them. It has also been said that the two judges should be barred from hearing the dispute until the litigants agree on one of them. The first view is more consistent with our position.
A judge’s authority may also be restricted to a particular dispute between two litigants. His authority over them then remains in force as long as their dispute continues. Once he has finally adjudicated between them, his authority ends. If another dispute subsequently arises between them, he may not hear it without renewed authorization.
If the litigants are not specified, but the judge’s jurisdiction is restricted to particular days, and it is said to him, “I have appointed you to adjudicate between litigants on Saturday only,” he may hear all litigants and all claims on that day, and his authority ends when the sun sets on it. If he is appointed to adjudicate every Saturday, that is also valid, but his authority is restricted to adjudicating on those days. When Saturday ends, his authority does not end altogether, because it remains in force for other days of the same kind.