Which Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel?
Hillel the Elder had a long lineage of descendants who were Nesiim, princes. Going through the generations, father to son, there is:
his son Shimon
Gamliel I (the Elder)
Shimon ben Gamliel I (the Elder)
Gamliel II
Shimon ben Gamliel II
Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi
Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel I was Nasi in the generation leading up to the Destruction of the Second Temple, so around 3rd generation. His grandson, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel II was Nasi later, and was contemporary with Rabbi Meir et al., though a bit younger. When Rabbi Yochanan famously says that wherever we encounter Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel in the Mishnah, the halacha is like him, except for three instances, we are dealing with #2.
Recently, the gemara presented a Mishnah which seemed to be a three way dispute. On Bava Batra 31b:
דִּתְנַן, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אֵין מַעֲלִין לַכְּהוּנָּה עַל פִּי עֵד אֶחָד. אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: אֵימָתַי – בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁיֵּשׁ עוֹרְרִין, אֲבָל בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁאֵין עוֹרְרִין – מַעֲלִין לַכְּהוּנָּה עַל פִּי עֵד אֶחָד. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן הַסְּגָן: מַעֲלִין לַכְּהוּנָּה עַל פִּי עֵד אֶחָד.
As we learned in a mishna (Ketubot 23b): Rabbi Yehuda says: One is not elevated to the presumptive status of priesthood on the basis of the testimony of one witness. Two witnesses are required for that purpose. Rabbi Elazar says: When is that the halakha? In a case where there are challengers to his claim that he is a priest. But in a case where there are no challengers, one is elevated to the presumptive status of priesthood on the basis of the testimony of one witness. Rabban Shimon Ben Gamliel says in the name of Rabbi Shimon, son of the deputy High Priest: One is elevated to the presumptive status of priesthood on the basis of the testimony of one witness.
I would have initially read it as a three way dispute, but it is understood (see commentators) that fifth-generation Rabbi Eleazar ben Shamua is merely clarifying the words of Rabbi Yehuda b. Illai.
It is to this that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel weighs in, so what makes sense is that he is the fifth-generation one, a contemporary. So, he is #2.
He is quoting Rabbi Shimon, son of the Segan Kohen Gadol. The father of this person, actually the Segan, was Rabbi Chanina the Segan HaKohanim. This Rabbi Chanina is enumerated as one of the 10 Martyrs, the asara harugei malchut, alongside Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel I.
If so, it totally makes sense that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel II (5th generation) quotes Rabbi Shimon son of the Segan (3rd and 4th generation), whose father was Rabbi Chanina (the Segan, 2nd generation).
The Hebrew Wikipedia article on Rabbi Shimon ben HaSegan is mentions he is oft cited by Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel. That hyperlink link takes us to #2, which fits with what I am saying.
However, the infobox on the Wikipedia entry for Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel #1 puts his teacher as Rabbi Shimon ben HaSegan:
This seems incorrect, and was either generated automatically, or by someone who didn’t make the same distinction.
Regardless, the gemara goes on to find the fine difference between Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and Rabbi Eleazer,
רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל הַיְינוּ רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר! וְכִי תֵּימָא: עַרְעָר חַד אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ – רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר סָבַר: עַרְעָר חַד,
The Gemara asks: The opinion of Rabban Shimon Ben Gamliel is identical to the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, as they agree that one is elevated to the presumptive status of priesthood on the basis of one witness when there are no challengers. What is their dispute? And if you would say that there is a practical difference between them in a case where there is a challenge posed by one person, as Rabbi Elazar holds: A challenge posed by one person is sufficient to undermine one’s presumptive status of priesthood, and two witnesses are required to overcome that challenge;
and then Rav Ashi ultimately weighs in, so that may date the Stamma to Rav Ashi’s time or earlier. I felt it a bit farfetched, but who am I?
I could have answered that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel is arguing with Rabbi Yehuda, and may even argue and allow a single witness where there are multiple kvetchers.
But even if he is actually agreeing, there is something that he is adding. Namely, he is cited Rabbi Shimon son of the Segan, that is the son of the Assistant Kohen Gadol. This is not just a simple position that is being held. I think it is a testimony of actual Kohanic practice.
Specifically, if Rabbi Shimon ben HaSegan operated in the tumultuous generation after the Temple’s destruction, when it was difficult for Kohanim to prove who they were, courts had to contend with establishing identity. Perhaps people weren’t alive to provide testimony as a set of two witnesses, and documents of lineage were lost. At the same time, the stakes were lower, since this wasn’t to work in the Temple bringing sacrifices or eat terumah on a Biblical level. It was to receive kohanic honors, to duchen, to eat rabbinic-level terumah. (This last point, about rabbinic level, may be what motivates the Rambam to make this distinction — that one cannot ascend to kehunah based on one witness; but that nowadays, for those rabbinic-level aspects, one can.)
Two years ago, for the Jewish Link, I wrote an article titled Gatekeepers for their Tribe, where I noted that, in particular, it seems that Amoraim who were Kohanim presided over cases establishing someone was a Kohen; and Amoraim who were Leviim over establishing someone’s Levitical status. If so, this specifically is what Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel adds — not necessarily a different position, but testimony about the established court’s practice and standard of evidence.
By the way, last week was Pinchas, and the article starts as follows:
Pinchas approaches Moshe. He says, “Moshe, I want to be a kohen.” “I’m sorry, you can’t be a kohen.” “But I really want to be a kohen. I’ll give you a thousand shekel if I can be a kohen.” “I’m sorry, Pinchas, you can’t be a kohen.” “But I really really want to be a kohen. I’ll give you a million shekel if I can be a kohen.” “I’m sorry, you can’t become a kohen. Being a kohen requires a certain level of dedication and zealousness for your God.”
“I’ll show you dedication,” says Pinchas. He grabs a spear and pierces Kosbi and Zimri in a single thrust. Moshe, slowly backing away: “OK, OK, you can be a kohen. But tell me, why do you want to be a kohen so much?” Pinchas: “My father was a kohen; my grandfather was a kohen. Why shouldn’t I want to be a kohen?!”