Avot040

1:
We have already met Shim'on ben-Shataĥ in the story of Yehoshu'a ben-Peraĥyah (see Avot032, explanation #9). Without doubt he was one of the most prominent of the scholars of the Second Temple period – certainly the most prominent until the advent of Hillel. The Gemara [Berakhot 48a] tells us that he was the brother of Salomé Alexandra. You will recall that she had been the childless widow of Yehudah Aristobulos, and upon the latter's death she was married in a levirate union with her brother-in-law, Alexander Yannai (see Avot032, explanation #6 & #7). According to the general rule indicated in the mishnah Ĥagigah 2:2, Shim'on ben-Shataĥ was more aristocratic than his companion Yehudah ben-Tabbai (see Avot027, in the discussion). However, we have also seen that this was questioned (see Avot039, explanation #3); certainly, everything that is known about him seems to point to him having been the President of the Sanhedrin, a very authoritative – and somewhat authoritarian – figure.

2:
Throughout his reign Alexander Yannai had been a staunch supporter of the Sadducees; however, towards the end of his reign it seems that he had a change of heart. This change of heart may have been caused by political necessity (which need not concern us here) and it may have been genuine. At any rate, as he lay on his death bed in the year 76 BCE he did a most extraordinary thing for the times: he appointed his wife, Salomé Alexandra, as his successor in power. Certainly, for many a long year thereafter 28th Tevet, which was the date of the death of Alexander Yannai (January 2nd 75 BCE) and the (temporary) eclipse of Sadducean power, were celebrated as a day of thanksgiving.

3:
Salomé Alexandra thus became queen and ruling monarch. She was to be the first and last woman – so far – in history to hold in her hands the political destinies of the Jewish people until her only counterpart, Golda Meir, 2045 years later. The nine years of her reign were a period of peace and progress – certainly compared with the reign of terror that epitomized the rule of her late husband. Without wishing to denigrate in any way her unique contribution to Jewish history I think it would only be fair to see behind the extraordinary social developments of her reign the guiding hand of her brother, Shim'on ben-Shataĥ. His connection with the royal house, his extensive knowledge, and his status in the Sanhedrin all served to consolidate the standing of the Pharisees among the people.

4:
Throughout Yannai's reign Shim'on ben-Shataĥ had been a stout opponent of the king's tyrannical leanings. When we studied Tractate Sanhedrin [Sanhedrin033, explanation #4] we described one such encounter with the king. This encounter led to the decision that kings not of the house of David could not be prosecuted in court. Another judicial development under Shim'on ben-Shataĥ was concerned with the acceptability of evidence [see Sanhedrin 070, explanation #5]. And yet a third time that we encountered Shim'on ben-Shataĥ in his judicial capacity was when we learned [Sanhedrin 6:1] that he executed as witches eighty (!) women in one day in Ashkelon.

To be continued.

I wrote: The lawyers mentioned here are "shysters" who teach litigants and witnesses how to best present their case: "If the judge asks you this you should answer him thus, and if the other guy claims that then you should respond thus." [Rambam, Mishnah Commentary]

David Baird writes:

I don't know how Rambam considers such a person a shyster. I would guess that there is a difference here between our modern approach to law and truth and Rambam's. I think one could call such a lawyer an advisor. In the United States, lawyers are permitted to prepare witnesses, though on the stand, the witness is not allowed to consult a lawyer. I am guessing that in your next lesson, you will justify Rambam's view that such lawyers are shysters.

I respond:

I cannot justify "Rambam's view that such lawyers are shysters", because that is not necessarily Rambam's view! Note very carefully where I put the quotation marks: the description of these people as shysters is mine, not Rambam's!

I had already explained the essential difference between the term lawyer as used in rabbinic parlance and in modern jurisprudence. In all modern western judicial systems a lawyer is not only serving his or her client but is also a servant of the court, assisting the judge in finding out the truth of the case. Even in order to further his client's case no responsible lawyer would dream of deliberately misleading the court. As I pointed out, halakhah does not recognize any legal standing for a lawyer: the litigants must make their own case in their own words and must be questioned directly by the judges. Thus, in the eyes of the sages any person who undertakes to teach a litigant how to fool the court by anticipating possible questions and suggesting how best to field them is what we would call today a shyster. Instead of letting the judges cross examine the litigants and the witnesses freely so that they can best assess their innocence or culpability, these lawyers are hired hacks who care nothing for justice but only how best to see that the judicial result is in favour of the person who has paid them for their advisory services. Thus, the words of Yehudah ben-Tabbai in the mishnah have no relevance at all to the modern institution of advocacy.