Sanhedrin 069

1:
These two mishnayot have been presented together, as they are in the recension used in the Babylonian Talmud, since very little explanation is needed to elucidate them.

2:
The Sanhedrin – both of 23 members and of 71 members – sat in a semi-circle, since it was important during the discussion on the case that everyone be able to see everyone. Obviously, this could be achieved even more effectively if they were to sit in a full circle, but, as Rashi [Western Europe, 11th century CE] points out in his commentary, this would have prevented some of the judges being able to see the faces of the litigants and, even more importantly, of the witnesses. Furthermore, according to the Talmud of Eretz-Israel [Sanhedrin 8b] the President of the Sanhedrin would sit in the centre of the semi-circle so that all would be able to see and hear him.

3:
Facing the judges were two clerks on either side of the courtroom who noted down the course of the discussion. According to the commentary of Tosfot YomTov [Rabbi YomTov Lipmann Heller, Central Europe, 1579-1654 CE] each of them made continuous and parallel notes: they would write down the name of the judge, whether he spoke for acquittal or for condemnation and what his reasons were. Rabbi Yehudah [ben-Ilai] contests this opinion of Tanna Kamma [the opinion of the sage whose opinion was quoted anonymously in the mishnah]. Rabbi Yehudah believes that there should be three clerks: one to note down everything said by the judges speaking in favour of acquittal, another to note down what was said by the judges favouring condemnation, and only the third noted down everything. Rashi explains that Rabbi Yehudah believes that the task would be too great for just two clerks, noting down everything, and would inevitably lead to errors and lacunae. However, the great commentary Bet ha-Beĥirah [Menaĥem ben-Shelomo Me'iri, Provence, 1249-1316 CE] states that the clerks divided the task up between them: one of them noting down everything said by the judges speaking in favour of acquittal, and the other noting down what was said by the judges favouring condemnation. The view of Tanna Kamma according to the explanation of Me'iri is what was codified by Rambam [Moses Maimonides, North Africa, 1135-1204 CE} as halakhah [Mishneh Torah, Sanhedrin 1:9].

4:
Behind the clerks and facing the judges were three rows of Talmidei Ĥakhamim – sages who were not on the panel and students who had not yet reached the status of being a judge. Like the judges sitting on either side of the president, the people sitting in these three rows were seated according to a strict protocol. The greatest sat in the first place of the first row and the least sat in the last place of the last row. Rashi says that each row consisted of twenty-three scholars, yielding a total of sixty-nine. Should it prove necessary to appoint one of them to the panel the members of each row would move up one place, and the most prominent of the students sitting in the public gallery would move into the place vacated at the end of the third row. Such appointments could become necessary if the panel was "hung". We recall what we learned in Sanhedrin 061. (What we said there concerning Dinei Mamonot is equally true of Dinei Nefashot):

Monica Cellio writes:

Clearly this is an argument for not starting the case at a time when this sort of postponement is guaranteed or even highly likely. But what is the resolution if the case runs long and – even though an effort was made to allow plenty of time – a decision cannot be reached before Shabbat or Yom Tov? (Perhaps the case is complicated and cannot be completed within the week even by starting at the earliest possible time.) Is there some provision for "refreshing everyone's memory" when the case resumes, for example? Is there an automatic acquittal to protect the accused from a failure in this process? Does it make a difference if the prevailing mood was in favor of acquittal (vs. condemnation) at the end of the last session?

I respond:

We must distinguish between the two stages of a trial. No limit is placed on the presentation of the evidence and the examination of the witnesses, which is the first stage, and might continue for some time. The mishnah was referring to the second stage, in which the judges begin to discuss the evidence. Here it is deemed necessary not to commence the discussion at such a time as would inevitably create a hiatus in the discussion.

Furthermore, the cases were much more straightforward in earlier times. When the judges are judges of both fact and law – when they are both judge and jury in western terms – it takes much less time to assess the evidence, because of their expertise. Furthermore – and I hope I am not offending anyone here – the litigants had to appear in person before the court and to make their own case. When there are no lawyers or advocates present things seem to go more quickly.