Clarification #1: Rashi explains, why is it necessary to transcribe it? If it is on account of tomorrow's deliberations, and it is merely in order to try and highlight the side of merit, then let them write 'So-and-so ruled li'Zechus', Why is the reason necessary?

Clarification #2: It must therefore be in order to prevent him from retracting. Consequently, it is necessary to insert the reason, to prevent him from claiming that he erred regarding a matter which the Tzedokim agree (in which case his initial ruling will be negated).

Question: If that is so, then for the same reason one needs to insert the reason even if he would be able to retract at the time of the Din's conclusion, to prevent him from claiming during tomorrow's deliberations that he erred regarding a matter which the Tzedokim agree?

Answer (Part #1): Seeing as what happens during the deliberations does not really affect the Din (as to whether the defendant is Patur or Chayav) so much, only what is said during the conclusion of the Din, only to highlight the merits (as we explained), that would not be sufficient reason to transcribe the reason. Bearing in mind that at the conclusion of the Din, the Dayanim are permitted to retract anyway.

Answer (Part #2): If, however, they were not permitted to retract even during the conclusion of the Din, then the reason for the merit would make a difference, and it would be necessary to transceibe it.

Textural Change: Rabeinu Shmu'el (the Rashbam) has the text 'Mechalek' (it is the hammer that breaks up the rock), since it is clearly not the hammer that breaks into pieces but the rock.

Question #1: In that case, the Gemara ought rather to have said 'Mah ha'Sela Mischalek'?

Question #2: Similarly, in Perek R. Akiva (Shabbos, 88b & 89a) the wording is 'Mah Patish Mischalek ... Just as a hammer breaks into many sparks, so too, did every command that came out of the Mouth of Hash-m divide into seventy languages. There too (according to the Rashbam), it should have also said 'Mah Sela Mischalek '?

Alternative Explanation: Rabeinu Tam therefore explains (the Pasuk in Yirmiyah, to mean) " ... and like a hammer which a rock causes to break into pieces; since it is the hammer that is broken up by the rock ...

Proof: Like the story cited by the Midrash, about a person who purchased a sapphire and who went to have it examined. They placed it on an anvil and struck it with a hammer; the anvil split and the hammer broke into pieces, but the sapphire remained intact. And that is what the Pasuk means when it writes "And like a hammer that is broken into pieces by a rock!"

Clarification: One cannot say the opposite ...

Proof #1: Firstly, because the beginning of the Din is the more important.

Proof #2: And secondly, because "be'Yom Hanchilo" (the Pasuk from which we learn it) refers to the accepting of the witnesses, which is the beginning of the Din.

Implied Question: Rava in Mo'ed Katan (8a & 8b) actually learns it from the Pasuk "ke'Nega Nir'ah li ... ", 'li, ve'Lo le'Ori'; whereas from our Pasuk he learns that there are days on which one cannot inspect the Nega - such as when it appears on a Chasan, in which case one allows the seven days of 'Sheva B'rachos' for him and for his coat.

Answer: It is the way of the Gemara to cite the most obvious D'rashah - like here, where, if not for the Pasuk "ke'Nega Nir'ah li ... ", we would have Darshened from our Pasuk "in the day", 'and not in the night". And there are many such cases in Shas.

Question: Perhaps the reason of our Mishnah is because the Pasuk writes "And they shall judge the people at all times"; but as far as a blind man is concerned, the Tana concedes that we compare 'Quarrels' to Nega'im (which can only be judged by day).

Clarification #1: Rashi explains that by day, the command of the dying man is final, and requires no other Dayanim.

Clarification #2: We will then need to establish the Pasuk where he made a Kinyan, since the principle 'The words of a Sh'chiv-Mera are considered written and handed over' is mi'de'Rabbanan, not min ha'Torah.

Reference: This issue has already been explained in the first Perek - on Daf 9a & 9b, in connection with 'at the time when they warned them'.