(Fol. 30) Our Rabbis were taught: Concerning the passage (Lev. 19, 15) In righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbor. This means that the court should not allow one litigant to sit down, while the other is standing; one litigant should not have the privilege of talking while the other is denied such privilege. Another explanation may be given; always try to judge every one according to his virtuous acts. R. Joseph taught: "This verse signifies that him who is your equal in wisdom and deeds, you shall try to judge fairly."
(Ib. b) The wife of R. Huna had once a case before R. Nachman, and the latter deliberated with himself as to how to proceed: "Shall I rise to honor her, then her opponent will remain stupefied, and should I not rise, there is a rule that the wife of a scholar must be treated in the same manner as the scholar himself [and for a scholar one is bound to rise]." He then helped himself out of the difficulty by instructing his servant, thus: "Throw a duckling upon my head as soon as R. Huna's wife enters, so that I will have to rise anyhow."
Our Rabbis were taught: Whence do we infer that the judge must not favor either party with his speech? It is said (Ex. 23, 7) Keep thee far from a false matter; furthermore, whence do we infer that he shall not enter discussion with an ignorant disciple in a case [so that he might not be misled by the latter]? It is said again, Keep thee far from a false matter. Whence do we infer that the judge, being aware that the party is a robber and there being only one witness, or a plain witness, being aware that the party is a robber, must not conjoin with the latter? It is therefore said, Keep thee far from a false matter. Whence do we infer that if the judge notices the witnesses testifying falsely, that he shall not say to himself: I will decide the case in accordance with their evidence according to the law and the collar will remain on the neck of the witnesses? (Fol. 31) It is said Keep thee far from a false matter. Whence do we infer that if a disciple sits before his teacher and observes a different treatment for the poor, or an accusation for the rich that he must not be silent? It is said, Keep thee far from a false matter. Whence do we infer that if a disciple sees his master error in his judgment, he must not say, I will wait until he issues his verdict and then I will disclose the error, thereby causing the issuance of another verdict, which will have to be done with the acknowledgment of my authority? It is therefore said, Keep thee far from false matter. Whence do we infer that the master shall not tell his disciple: "You are aware that I would not lie even if offered one hundred manas, but there is one who owes me a mana, and I have only one witness, it is but right that you appear in court, so that the defendant might think you, too, a witness, and I will thus get my mana," although he does not instruct his disciple to tell a lie, but begs him to stand and say nothing [thereby scaring his opponent]. The verse therefore reads, Keep thee far from a false matter. Furthermore, whence do we infer that if the plaintiff claims a mana, he must not claim two, with the intention that thereby he will cause the defendant to confess one, which partial confession will make him liable to a biblical oath, so that it will be possible for the plaintiff to include here in the oath also other claims which he may have against the defendant? It is said, Keep thee far from a false matter. Again whence do we know that the defendant must not say: "Since the plaintiff claims two, I will therefore not confess even the one I owe him in order to avoid the Biblical oath in which the plaintiff may include some other claims?" It is said, Keep thee far from a false matter. Whence do we further infer that when three persons claim one mana from one party, and there are no witnesses, they shall not institute one of themselves as the plaintiff and the other two as witnesses, thereby recovering the mana and dividing it among themselves? It is said, Keep thee far from a false matter. Again whence do we infer that if two appear before the court, one richly dressed in a cloak worth one hundred mana, and the other clad in rags, the court must instruct the former to go and dress like his contestant, or to dress him richly like himself? It is said, Keep thee far from a false matter. See Text, that also to hear a case in the absence of one litigant is prohibited both to the judge and litigant.
(Ez. 18, 18) And did that which is not good in the midst of his people; Rab said: "This refers to one who comes to court with power of attorney," and according to Samuel, it refers to one who buys a field on which there are several claims.
(Fol. 35b) All the Divine names found in the Torah in connection with Abraham, are holy, except that of (Gen. 18, 3) And he said, my Lord, if now I have found favor in Thy sight, [which was addressed to an angel]. Chanina, the nephew of R. Joshua, and R. Elazar b. Azaria in the name of Elazar the Modite, say that even this name, too, is holy. In accordance with whose opinion will be that which was said in the name of R. Juda b. Rab that hospitality is considered greater than the reception of the glory of the Shechina? It is in accordance with these two. Furthermore, all the names found in connection with Lot, are common, except (Ib. 19, 18-19) Oh, not so, my Lord; Thy servant hath found grace in Thy eyes, and Thou hast magnified Thy kindness, etc., and who but God can save? Again, all names in connection with Nab'oth are holy; those in connection with Micha (Jud. 17) are common. R. Elazar, however, said that the names with Nab'oth are holy, but those with Micha are partly holy and partly common, namely of Aleph, Lamed (Lord) is a common and of Yud, Hay (God) is holy, except (Ib. 18, 31) which, though beginning with Aleph-Lamed is nevertheless holy. All the names in connection with the Vale of Benjamin (Ib. 20) are according to R. Eliezer, common, and according to R. Joshua, they are holy. R. Eliezer said to him. The passage He promiseth and doth not fulfil [How can it be holy when He has not fulfilled His promise?] Said R. Joshua: "He has fulfilled His promise, but the people there did not understand what was said to them"; a proof to this you find in the fact that after they had comprehended it, they conquered, as it reads (Ib. 20, 28) And Phineas, the son of Elazar, … the son of Aaron, stood, etc. The name Shlomah wherever mentioned in Solomon's Songs is holy (Son. 1, 1) A song to whom peace belongs; except (Ib. 8, 12) My vineyard, which is mine, is before me; Thou, O Solomon, shalt have the thousands. According to others, the following (Ib. 3, 7) Behold, it is the litter of Solomon, is also common. Wherever in Daniel the word king is mentioned, it is common except (Dan. 2, 37) Thou, O king, art a king of kings, unto whom the God of heaven hath given the kingdom, the power, and the strength, and the glory. According to others also (Ib. 4, 16) My Lord … . for those who hate thee; for, to whom did Daniel address this? Surely not to Nebuchadnezzar, because by so doing he would curse Israel who hated him; hence he must have addressed it to God. The first Tanna, however, maintains that enemies exist only to Israel, but other nations have no enemies.