The purpose which the writer of this story had in view is reflected in the quotation given above from the Mishna, Sanhedrin vi. 2, where two points are specially emphasized, namely, that a criminal who has been condemned is to have every chance of clearing himself, even up to the very end; and that adequate witness must be forthcoming before an accused man may be condemned. In fact the passage referred to is one of several others which could be given implying that a reform in the administration of justice had at one time taken place among the Jewish authorities. Ball, following Brüll,[419] shows, in the admirable introduction to his commentary on this book, that this reform was instituted at the instance of Simon ben Shetach who lived during the reigns of Alexander Jannæus (B.C. 103-76) and Alexandra[420] (B.C. 76-67); it consisted, firstly, in the institution of a proper examination of witnesses; in the Mishna, Pirqe Aboth i. 9 it is said: “Simon ben Shetach used to say, Examine the witnesses abundantly, and be cautious in thy words, lest they learn from them to give false answers.” But Simon ben Shetach was also, in the words of Ball, “the champion of another reform in connection with the law of testimony. As the brother-in-law of king Alexander Jannæus, he was able, after a long struggle, to secure the triumph of his party, the Pharisees, in the Sanhedrin, and of their principles in the administration of the Law, over their opponents, the Sadducees.... According to Sadducæan principles, they who had falsely accused a man of a capital crime were only put to death if the sentence had already been executed on their victim. The legal aphorism, ‘life for life,’ was construed literally. The Pharisees, on the other hand, relying on Deuteronomy xix. 19,[421] considered the _intention_ of the accusers as equivalent to actual murder. According to them, the maxim ‘life for life’ came into application as soon as, in consequence of the false depositions, sentence had been pronounced, although not yet carried out. The law at the time extraordinarily favoured informations. The witnesses, who were also the accusers, were only examined about the main fact, so that their falsehood could not easily become evident; and even if it did, they got off without punishment, though the accused had actually been executed. This crying evil the Pharisaic party sought to remedy by the introduction of a more rigorous examination of witnesses, and by making the law more severe against false witnesses.” The author’s aim, therefore, in writing this book, was to show, by means of a story, that the administration of justice was in some most important particulars defective, and to put forth the Pharisaic suggested reform as the proper remedy.