I saw an article on this story, where the question was asked about why the son of Shimon bne Shetach was executed.
It seems to be the wrong question: We are told that both the father and son did not wish to nullify the decision of the sanhedrin, even tho they knew that the son was innocent. This is a direct violation of the Torah law not to kill the righteous, as stated in Mishpatim.
Does this not quite clearly show that ben Shetach's Sanhedrin was a corrupt sanhedrin, which did not administer a just law?
Greetings,
This forum is dedicated to the discussion of the daily page of Talmud learned as part of the Dafyomi cycle.
Regarding your specific question, please include the exact reference in our archives of the article that you are questioning. If the article was not published in our archives, please address your question directly to the author of the article.
To address your question in short: First, it was not Shimon "ben Shetach's Sanhedrin." He would not have been allowed to preside over a court that was adjudicating a case involving his son. Rather, it was one of the many courts of 23 judges that adjudicate capital cases.
Second, there is no indication that the court was corrupt; on the contrary, they administered a just law, as the law states that once the final verdict has been issued, it cannot be rescinded. It is very difficult to reach a verdict of guilty in a capital case (as the Mishnah in Makos 7a mentions), and once the testimony of the witnesses has been found to corroborate in accordance with the standards necessary by law, and all other conditions have been met, and the verdict has been issued, the witnesses cannot retract their testimony and the verdict is executed.
Third, while the defendant himself is able to delay the execution of the verdict by showing that he has a valid argument in his own defense, it is clear that the son did not want to do this. This is clearly evident in the version of the story recorded in the Yerushalmi. The question, then, is why he did not defend himself, and not why the court put him to death, since the court was acting in accordance with the law.
Fourth, whether the son actually was innocent, or righteous as you write, we do not know. We are not informed of the other elements of the situation, but only of the details necessary to support the Gemara's words there (in Sanhedrin). Perhaps the son was guilty of the crime, but the witnesses did not see it but fabricated their testimony, and thus in the hands of Heaven he indeed was supposed to be killed. (Indeed, see note #22 of the Margoliyos ha'Yam to the Gemara here in Sanhedrin.) In addition, the false witnesses certainly received their just due as well (we see that they were afraid of their impending punishment and thus they attempted to absolve themselves). Certainly the death of the innocent son was a great tragedy, but it is no less a tragedy than any death of any innocent. When a murderer kills an innocent person, what does this have to do with the court? Here, too, the fact that the witnesses conspired so successfully to abuse the court system and have an innocent person found guilty makes *them* murderers; it does not make the court corrupt.
Y. Shaw