After we spoke about what happens with the first witness, we'll now return to what happens next in the Beit Din (court), when they bring in the second witness. We're talking about a case where they may put someone to death for this type of crime. He did something so bad that they would put him to death. Mishnah says: After the judges question the first witness, they bring in the second witness and ask him those same questions. If the statements of both witnesses line up, if they're consistent, and we accept their testimony as honest and correct, the judges open with a statement. It tells the person on trial that if everything goes well, if everything is okay, he's going to be acquitted; they're going to say he's innocent and has nothing to fear. But they're going to do their research and make sure they're reaching the proper conclusions.
If one of the witnesses said that they had a reason to acquit him, to say that he was innocent, or if one of the students sitting in front of the judges said, “I have an argument that should prove that he's guilty,” we say: “The witness is not allowed to join the discussion whatsoever, even to say that he thinks the man is innocent.” He's not allowed to join at all. The witness has no role in the discussion here. He just gives his testimony and has to be quiet. The talmidim, the students who are sitting in front of the judges, aren't allowed to try to say that the person on trial is guilty. We silence them both. The student here is only allowed to make an argument that the person on trial is innocent.
If one of the students said that he had a reason to argue that the man on trial was innocent, they would bring him up and seat him among the rest of the judges so that he could present his case, what he thinks. They wouldn't dismiss him or have him sit back with the students for the entire day, even if they didn't need him anymore. It was considered an embarrassment to send him back to the rows of students. Here we're talking about a case where it was found that the student had a wrong idea, that he had a wrong way of trying to argue that the person on trial was innocent. That's when they wouldn't dismiss him. But he wouldn't come back the next day. If they accepted his argument, if it was a valid, good argument, then they would give him the honor of sitting with the judge. He would sit with the judges permanently, even though he would not have a vote among them. He wasn't part of the judges, but he would sit next to them. He would have the honor of sitting with them. If he said something that made sense, then the judges would listen to him and talk about what he had to say. Even if the person on trial himself had an argument, he said he had a reason to prove, he had a way to show that he was innocent, they listened to him. As long as he's saying something that makes sense, the judges would listen to him.