Shimon ben Shatach was the brother of Queen Salome Alexandra, who was the widow of King Yannai. (76-67 BCE.) He is best remembered for his achievement in establishing a system of universal public education for all children in Israel. His exemplary code of conduct is related in the following anecdote:

During his period of poverty he requested his disciples to buy him a camel from an Arab. Upon return to their Master, they rejoiced over their find of a precious stone in the collar of the camel.

"Is the seller aware of this?" asked the Rabbi. Upon the response in the negative, Simon Ben Shatach retorted...."Do you consider me a barbarian to take advantage of the letter of the law by which the gem is mine together with the camel? Return the gem immediately!"

When the heathen received the stone he cried out:

"Blessed be the G-d of Shimon Ben Shatach! Blessed be the G-d of Israel!"

That exclamation was dearer to Shimon Ben Shatach than all the gems in the world... because through it was performed a Kiddush Hashem, a sanctification of G-d's name!

Shimon Ben Shatach had a very bitter experience in his life. His son was executed on a charge that was ultimately proved baseless. But the falsity of the charge was discovered too late. Witnesses had testified against him, and only later when other witness arrived and showed the first set as false witnesses (aydim zomemim), was the truth revealed.

So it is understandable why Shimon Ben Shatach should emphasize this dictum: Be very searching in the examination of the witnesses.

In the prior Mishnayos we found an emphasis on the treatment and conduct vis a vis the litigants. Here we direct our attention to the treatment and conduct of the witnesses. We generally deem the testimony of the litigants themselves as paramount... what they claim, the way they say it, the sincerity of their presentation and their respective demeanors. The testimony of the witnesses may appear to play a secondary role, as a corroborating element.

Shimon Ben Shatach is warning the judge... The WITNESSES are the key factor in the search for truth. Litigants have a vested interest, have a stake in the outcome. They can make sincere exaggerated claims... but where is the proof? The testimony of the witnesses can make a rich man poor, or a poor man rich, and their testimony can take life or give life.

The urgency of the Torah in demanding that anyone who knows facts and can testify on behalf of a litigant MUST come forward and do so, is recognition of the insistence for truth. Whoever withholds his testimony transgressors a mitzvah of the Torah and has committed a sin for which he must bring a sin-offering (asham). [Leviticus 5]

The prohibition against testifying falsely is embodied in the Ten Commandments: "Do not testify against your friend as a false witness." Accordingly, when the witnesses were brought into court for examination they were impressed with the severity of false testimony, and verses of Mishli (Proverbs 25:14-19) were read aloud to them to instill awe and fear against false testimony. It was further impressed upon them that they be constantly aware before whom they give testimony, and who, in the future will exact punishment for bearing false witness. "and the two men (witnesses), who are involved in the dispute, shall stand before HASHEM! [Deuteronomy 19:17]

The Talmud in Meseches Sanhedrin discusses in detail the procedure and the type of questions posed to the witness in the thoroughness and precision required to elicit the truth.

Shimon Ben Shatach here reiterates that Torah demand... BE VERY SEARCHING IN THE EXAMINATION OF THE WITNESSES.

In this chapter, we learned "Judge all people meritoriously." In the previous Mishna we learned that the judge must consider the litigants as guilty, and treat them and the witnesses with sternness. We discussed the paradox between the two statements, but we also want to expand an additional thought.

The edict to judge all people meritoriously is a virtue demanded of all of us... provided that by keeping that perspective we do not cause damage and loss to another. When we deal with an individual, and we evaluate his deeds and his character, of course, if we know no different, every Jew has a Chezkas kashrus, a presumption of goodness. If his reputation is good, then even when we observe questionable deeds, we should give him the benefit of the doubt.

But when there are two litigants, and giving the benefit of the doubt to one, would cause loss to the other... we have an entirely different scenario. Then we have to search, examine, investigate, surgically cut through the claims, counterclaims, evidences, and unearth the truth of the events. Here there is no room for 'benefit of the doubt.' Here we need the attitude of the prosecutor... until the truth is revealed.