Sanhedrin 033

1:
We have already pointed out – in the explanation of the previous mishnah – that the principle of reciprocity applies to judgment. Only someone who is liable to be judged himself may sit in judgment upon others. Since, according to our mishnah, a king of Israel may not be put on trial it follows that he may not sit in judgment on others. However, the Gemara [Sanhedrin 19a] points out that our mishnah is in clear contradiction of what is implied in a Biblical verse [Jeremiah 21:12]: "[Kings of the] House of David, thus says the Lord: sit in judgment every morning and rescue the theft of the oppressed man's rights…" Therefore, the Gemara makes a distinction between the rights and duties of a king from the legitimate line of David and the rights and duties of a king of any other lineage. The Gemara refers to this latter kind of king as a "King of Israel". As far as the sages were concerned the experience of the Jewish people with heads of state who were not of the Davidic line was not particularly salubrious.

2:
Before the Romans finally undertook direct government of what they termed the province of Judaea – in the year 6 CE – the country had been ruled for about a century and a half by kings whom the Gemara would classify as "Kings of Israel". The kings of the Hasmonean dynasty were priests, descendants of the house of Aaron, not the house of David; and Herod and his son, who had ruled from 40 BCE until 6 CE, were not even credited by the sages as being completely Jewish! The Hasmonean dynasty had started off in the most auspicious circumstances: the elation following the victory of Judah the Macabee – and even more so the victory of his brother Jonathan – against the Syrian Greeks paved the way for the last surviving son of old Mattathias, Simon, to combine both the high priesthood and the secular hegemony in his person; and his son, Yoĥanan Hyrkanos, did not hesitate to call himself king. (Simon had only called himself king in Greek and had not dared to do so in Hebrew!) Yoĥanan's cognomen 'Hyrkanos' is the Greek word for a tiger, and it is disquieting that the head of the Judean state bore a Greek cognomen – his grandfather, old Mattathias who had started the revolt against the Greek culture being forced on the Jews, must have turned in his grave. But worse was to come. Yoĥanan's son was called Yehudah Aristobulos, but he only reigned for one year. He was succeeded by his younger brother, Alexander Yannai. (Yannai is a familiar corruption of Yoĥanan.) We note with foreboding that it is now the Hebrew name that is the cognomen – though the sages still insisted on calling him King Yannai [King Johnny].

3:
Yannai reigned from 103 BCE to 76 BCE. Immediately upon his accession he took his late brother's childless widow in levirate marriage. Her name was Salomé [Shelomzion] Alexandra. (Salomé was to survive her second husband as well, and upon his death she became the head of government. As far as I can recall, she was the last woman to exercise supreme power over the Jewish people in her own right – and not just as her husband's consort – until Golda Me'ir.) Yannai was autocratic in his behaviour, and did not hesitate to include murder and even crucifixion in his tools of government. This brings us to the episode recounted by the Gemara in explanation of the decision to place kings of Israel above the law, whereas the legitimate kings of the line of David were not so considered.

4:
The Gemara tells of an incident that took place during Yannai's reign. One of his agents murdered someone. Shim'on ben-Shataĥ (who, it seems, was Yannai's brother-in-law!) was Av Bet-Din: that means that he was president of the Sanhedrin when it sat as a court of law rather than as a deliberative body. Shim'on demanded that Yannai surrender his agent for trial before the Sanhedrin. Yannai, who had Sadducean tendencies, decided not to cause an open rift with the Pharisaic Sanhedrin (possibly his wife had some influence here) and complied. Shim'on was not content with this minor victory and now demanded that Yannai himself appear before the court. He quoted Exodus 21:29, which suggests that just as the owner of an ox is responsible for the animal's actions so Yannai was really responsible for the actions of his agent. To this Yannai also consented. From what follows it is quite clear that Shim'on ben-Shataĥ was trying to humiliate Yannai, or at the very least to "bring him to heel". Yannai sat down in the court. Despite the fact that according to practice there was no reason why Yannai, a king, should not be accorded the courtesy of being permitted to remain seated during his testimony, Shim'on required that he be treated like any other witness who must give his evidence standing. In order to sugar the pill he added that "it is not before us that you are required to stand, but before Him at whose word the world was created". At this point Yannai must have realized where matters were leading and he decided to use the old advice of "divide and conquer". He replied, "Not if it only you who require me to stand, but I will stand if all your colleagues require it of me". Yannai knew that Shim'on was the only person in the court who was not in mortal fear of him – or at least, did not show any fear. Shim'on appealed to those to his right who suddenly found something very interesting to be inspected on the ground in front of them; when he appealed to those to his left they also cast their eyes downwards in shame at their cowardice. Shim'on was furious. "So you are thinking [of your own skins, instead of seeing that justice is fearlessly done]! May the only One whose thoughts matter [God] come and dish out His punishment of you!"

5:
The Gemara remarks laconically that "one that day it was decided that "A king may not sit in judgment nor may he be tried" – at least, if he was a "King of Israel".

To be continued: