Commentary for Sanhedrin 55:32

רב איקלע למזבן

— He [the Tanna] teachesus incidentally that the husband bears the same relationships as hiswife.30 But what of that which R.Hiyya taught: [The Mishnah enumerates] eight chiefrelations31 who make up the numberof twenty-four.32 But these [on theassumption that a son-in-law of the uncle's son ranks as a relative of thethird degree] amount tothirty-two!33 — But in fact, SON-IN-LAWis literally meant.34 Why then doeshe [Rab] designate him the son-in-law of his [the uncle's]son?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Thus Rashi, in accordance with the reading in our texts which seems to assume that the answer given above, 'What is meant by HIS SON-IN-LAW is the son-in-law of his son still stands as representing the view of Rab. This assumption is however hardly justified. Yad Ramah's text did not seem to contain the words, 'Why then … of his son', which certainly makes the reading smoother.] ');">35 — Because since his relationshipcomes from without,36 he is regardedas one degree further removed.37 Ifso, it is a case of the third degree vis a vis thesecond<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A man and his uncle's son-in-law are in the relationship of the second to the third degree. Thus: If A and B are brothers, then C, A's son, and B are second and first degrees; C and D, B's sons, are two seconds; therefore C and E, B's sons-in-law, rank as second and third (since a son-in-law, according to the last answer, is one degree further removed than a son). ');">38 [which is forbidden], whereasRab allowed [the testimony of] the second degree to thethird!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In that he said: I, my son and my son-in-law (a relative of the third degree) may not bear testimony against my uncle; from which it may be inferred that Rab's son (third degree) may bear testimony against the uncle's son (second degree). ');">39 — But Rab agrees with R.Eleazar.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In truth, he does not regard the son-in-law as a relative of the third degree, and so the Mishnah does, in fact, contradict him, as explained above. His view, however, is based on R. Eleazar. ');">40 For it has been taught:R. Eleazar said: Just as my paternal uncle, his son and son-in-law may nottestify for me so the son of my paternal uncle, his son and son-in-law maynot testify for me. But still, that includes relatives of the third and thesecond degrees,41 whereas Rab permittedthe testimony of suchrelatives!42 — Rab agrees with R.Eleazar in one point,43 but differsfrom him in another.44 What is Rab's reason? — Scripture states, Fathers shall not be put to deathfor sons ['al banim]; and sons …:45 this [the 'and'] teaches the inclusionof another generation [as ineligible to testify]. And R.Eleazar?46 — Scripture states, 'albanim,47 implying that the fathers'disqualification is carried over to thesons.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., all who are disqualified in respect of the fathers, are likewise disqualified is respect of the sons. Therefore, just as the first and third are ineligible (for R. Eleazar accepts Rab's exegesis of 'and'), so are the second (i.e., the son of the first) and the third disqualified. ');">48 R. Nahman said: My mother-in-law's brother, his son, and my mother-in-law'ssister's son, may not testify for me. The Tanna [of the Mishnah] supportsthis: A SISTER'S HUSBAND; THE HUSBAND OF ONE'S PATERNAL OR MATERNAL AUNT, … ALL THESE WITH THEIR SONS AND SONS-IN-LAW [ARE INELIGIBLE ASWITNESSES].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To his sister's son-in-law he is his mother-in-law's brother, to his paternal aunt's son-in-law he is his mother-in-law's brother's son, and to his maternal aunt's son-in-law he is his mother-in-law's sister's son. ');">49 R. Ashi said: While we were with'Ulla,50 the question was raised byus: What of one's father-in-law's brother, the father-in-law's brother'sson, and the father-in-law's sister's son? — He answered us: We learnt this:A BROTHER, FATHER'S BROTHER, AND MOTHER'S BROTHER … ALL THESE WITH THEIRSONS AND SONS-IN-LAW [AREINELIGIBLE].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To his brother's son-in-law he is his father-in-law's brother; to his father's brother's son-in-law he is his father-in-law's brother's son; and to his maternal uncle's son-in-law he is his father-in-law's sister's son. ');">51 It once happened that Rab went to buy

Explore commentary for Sanhedrin 55:32. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.

Previous Verse Full Chapter Next Verse