Sanhedrin 55

אשכחן אבות לבנים ובנים לאבות

We have thus found that 'fathers'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., who are brothers. ');">¹</span>

וכ"ש אבות להדדי

[cannot testify] for the sons [of eachother], and vice versa; and all the more, 'fathers' [cannot testify] in respectof each other.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As the exclusion of 'sons' is due only to the kinship of their fathers. ');">²</span>

בנים לבנים מנלן

But whence is derived[the inadmissibility of] 'sons' [to give evidence] in respect of'sons'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., first cousins. Cf. Mishnah, PATERNAL UNCLE'S SON. ');">³</span>

א"כ ליכתוב קרא לא יומתו אבות על בן מאי בנים דאפילו בנים להדדי

— If so [sc. that such evidenceis admissible], the text should have read, The fathers shall not be put todeath on account of [the evidence of] ason.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., on the evidence of any brother's son. ');">⁴</span>

אשכחן בנים להדדי בנים לעלמא מנלן

Why'sons'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the plural. ');">⁵</span>

אמר רמי בר חמא סברא הוא כדתניא אין העדים נעשין זוממין עד שיזומו שניהן ואי ס"ד בנים לעלמא כשרין נמצא עד זומם נהרג בעדות אחיו

[To teach] that they too [areineligible] in respect of each other. Thus we have found that 'sons' [areinadmissible] for each other. Whence do we know their inadmissibility [asjoint witnesses] concerningothers?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., that witnesses who are related to each other may not join in giving evidence in a case concerning strangers. ');">⁶</span>

אמר ליה רבא וליטעמיך הא דתנן שלשה אחין וא' מצטרף עמהן הרי אלו ג' עדיות והן עדות אחת להזמה

— Said Rami b. Hama: It isdeduced by logic. For it has been taught: Witnesses cannot be declaredZomemim<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the sense that they are punished with the penalty they sought to impose, v. Deut. XIX, 19. ');">⁷</span>

נמצא עד זומם משלם ממון בעדות אחיו

until both are provedZomemim.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Mak. 5b, cf. Tosef. VI. But otherwise, though their evidence may be dismissed, no penalty is imposed upon the false witness. ');">⁸</span>

אלא הזמה מעלמא קאתי ה"נ הזמה מעלמא קאתי

Now, should you think thatkinsmen<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'sons'. ');">⁹</span>

אלא א"כ ליכתוב קרא ובן על אבות אי נמי הם על אבות מאי ובנים אפילו בנים לעלמא

are eligible [to testify incases] concerning strangers, a witness declared aZomem<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In a murder case. ');">¹⁰</span>

אשכחן קרובי האב קרובי האם מנלן אמר קרא אבות אבות תרי זימני אם אינו ענין לקרובי האב תניהו ענין לקרובי האם

might suffer death becauseof his brother's evidence [which supported hisown].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For had no one else supported him, he could not, according to the above ruling, have been declared a Zomem. Consequently he would incur the death penalty through his kinsman's testimony. ');">¹¹</span>

אשכחן לחובה לזכות מנא לן

Raba demurred: But accordingto your argument, what of that which we learnt: If three brothers are[separately] supported by anotherwitness,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g., in support of a claim to the title of land; v. next note. ');">¹²</span>

אמר קרא יומתו יומתו תרי זימני אם אינו ענין לחובה תנהו ענין לזכות

they count as three separatesets of witnesses. But they count as one set in respect of being provedZomemim.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. B.B. 56b. Proof of three years' undisturbed possession of land is sufficient to establish a claim to it (cf. B.B. 28a). The case under consideration is one where each of three brothers testified to one year only, while the other witness who joined them attested possession for the three consecutive years. Thus the evidence of the three sets taken together was adequate proof for establishing the possessor's claim. When, however, collusion is discovered, the three pairs of witnesses are considered as one set, since the evidence of all was necessary before the claim could be established. Therefore no penalty is imposed unless they are all proved Zomemim. ');">¹³</span>

אשכחן בדיני נפשות בדיני ממונות מנלן

It thus results that theperjured witness must pay money on account of the evidence given by hisbrother?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who would have helped to establish the claim had it not been refuted. ');">¹⁴</span>

אמר קרא (ויקרא כד, כב) משפט אחד יהיה לכם משפט השוה לכם

Hence [it must be assumedthat the penalty for] false testimony is brought about throughoutsiders;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that it is not the brothers who cause the infliction of punishment. ');">¹⁵</span>

אמר רב אחי אבא לא יעיד לי הוא ובנו וחתנו אף אני לא אעיד לו אני ובני וחתני

so here too, [the penaltyfor] false testimony comes about throughstrangers!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence the difficulty remains; — whence do we know that two kinsmen are inadmissible as witnesses in cases of other persons? ');">¹⁶</span>

ואמאי הו"ל שלישי בראשון ואנן שני בשני תנן שני בראשון תנן שלישי בראשון לא תנן

— But ifso,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That such evidence is admissible. ');">¹⁷</span>

מאי חתנו דקתני במתניתין חתן בנו

the text should have read: anda son on account of fathers, or, and they on account of the fathers. Whyand sons? — To show that 'sons'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., relatives. ');">¹⁸</span>

וליתני בן בנו

[are not eligible] in respect of strangers.

מילתא אגב אורחיה קמ"ל דבעל כאשתו

We have thus deduced [the exclusion of] paternal relations. Whence do weknow [the same] of maternal relations? — Scripture says, 'fathers'twice.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The verse might have been written, Fathers shall not be put to death for sons nor they for them. ');">¹⁹</span>

ואלא הא דתני רבי חייא שמונה אבות שהן עשרים וארבעה הני תלתין ותרתין הוי

Since [the repetition] isunnecessary in respect to paternal relations, we may refer it to maternalrelations.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 368, n. 7, on this mode of exegesis. ');">²⁰</span>

אלא לעולם חתנו ממש ואמאי קרי ליה חתן בנו כיון דמעלמא קאתי כדור אחר דמי

Now, we have thus learnt[the exclusion of relatives' evidence] forcondemnation.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of which the text explicitly speaks. ');">²¹</span>

אי הכי הוה ליה שלישי בשני ורב אכשר שלישי בשני

Whence do we know[the same] of acquittal? — Scripture states, they shall be put to death,twice. Since that [the repetition] is unnecessary in respect of condemnation,refer it to acquittal. Again, we have learnt [the exclusion of relatives]in capital cases. Whence is the same known of civil suits? — Scripture says,Ye shall have one manner oflaw,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXIV, 22. ');">²²</span>

אלא רב דאמר כרבי אלעזר דתניא רבי אלעזר אומר כשם שאחי אבא לא יעיד לי הוא ובנו וחתנו כך בן אחי אבא לא יעיד לי הוא ובנו וחתנו

meaning that the law must beadministered similarly in all cases.

ואכתי הוה ליה שלישי בשני ורב אכשר שלישי בשני

Rab said:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To understand Rab's statement and the others that follow it is necessary to give some explanation of affinity and consanguinity in Talmudic law. Relationships between persons are divided into two categories: (a) relationships between persons governed by the ties of consanguinity, i.e., persons of the same blood either lineally or collaterally; (b) relationships through marriage, i.e., affinity. And on the principle that man and wife are considered as one, the relatives of the one are related to those of the other by affinity. Again, the rules by which kinsfolk are excluded from bearing testimony for or against each other affect only certain degrees of relationship, e.g., relatives in the first degree, such as father and son, or brothers may not testify for or against each other; relatives in the second degree may not testify for or against those of the first degree. e.g., a nephew for his uncle; relatives in the second degree may not testify for or against each other, e.g., first cousins. On the other hand, relatives in the third degree may testify for or against relatives in the first, e.g., a grand-nephew in respect of an uncle (according to Raba in B.B. 128a, in opposition to Rab's opinion here); and relatives in the third degree may testify for or against relatives in the second degree, e.g., first cousins for second cousins (Rab agrees with this opinion, but not R. Eleazar.) It should be noted that the ineligibility is mutual. ');">²³</span>

רב סבר ליה כוותיה בחדא ופליג עליה בחדא

My paternal uncle, hisson and his son-in-law may not bear testimony forme;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf Mishnah. In all these passages, 'for someone' means in a case where that person is a litigant, whether the evidence be in his favour or not. ');">²⁴</span>

מאי טעמא דרב דאמר קרא לא יומתו אבות על בנים ובנים לרבות דור אחר

nor may I, my son nor my son-in-lawtestify for him. But why so? Does not this involve relationships of the thirdand the first degrees?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rab's son is a grand-nephew' of Rab's uncle; hence, Rab's son is a relative of the third degree to Rab's uncle, who is of the first degree in relation to Rab's father. (N.B. 'First,' 'Second', and 'Third' almost correspond to generations, but not quite, since a father vis a vis his son ranks as first to first.) ');">²⁵</span>

ורבי אלעזר על בנים אמר רחמנא פסולי דאבות שדי אבנים

whereas welearnt that a relative of the seconddegree<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., a first cousin. ');">²⁶</span>

אמר רב נחמן אחי חמותי לא יעיד לי בן אחי חמותי לא יעיד לי בן אחות חמותי לא יעיד לי ותנא תונא בעל אחותו ובעל אחות אביו ובעל אחות אמו הן ובניהן וחתניהן

[may not testify] for a relativeof the second degree; and also that one of the second degree cannot testifyfor one of the first;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E. g., his uncle. ');">²⁷</span>

אמר רב אשי כי הוינן בי עולא איבעי לן אחי חמיו מהו בן אחי חמיו מהו בן אחות חמיו מהו

but not thata relative of the third degree may not bear testimony for one of the first?— What is meant by HIS SON-IN-LAW, stated in the Mishnah, is the son-in-lawof his [the uncle's] son.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Mishnah is therefore to be explained thus: ALL THESE (which includes an uncle) WITH THEIR SONS AND THEIR (sc. THE SONS') SONS-IN-LAW. Hence this teaches the inadmissibility of relatives of the third degree. ');">²⁸</span>

אמר לן תניתוה אחיו ואחי אביו ואחי אמו הן ובניהן וחתניהן

But shouldhe not include [instead] his [the uncle's]grandson?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'Which is a more direct way of stating a third degree of relationship. ');">²⁹</span>

רב איקלע למזבן

— He [the Tanna] teachesus incidentally that the husband bears the same relationships as hiswife.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Just as the daughter of his uncle's son is a relation of the third degree, so is her husband. ');">³⁰</span> But what of that which R.Hiyya taught: [The Mishnah enumerates] eight chiefrelations<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' There are actually nine chiefs enumerated, apart from the step-son who is counted by himself. This point will be raised later on; v. infra 28b. ');">³¹</span> who make up the numberof twenty-four.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since each is counted together with his son and son-in-law. ');">³²</span> But these [on theassumption that a son-in-law of the uncle's son ranks as a relative of thethird degree] amount tothirty-two!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Eight fathers, eight sons, eight grandsons, and eight sons-in-law of the sons. ');">³³</span> — But in fact, SON-IN-LAWis literally meant.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The uncle's, not the uncle's son's. ');">³⁴</span> 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&nbsp;… of his son', which certainly makes the reading smoother.] ');">³⁵</span> — Because since his relationshipcomes from without,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., through marriage. ');">³⁶</span> he is regardedas one degree further removed.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence, he ranks as a third degree relation, and thus justifies Rab's ruling. ');">³⁷</span> 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</span> [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</span> — 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</span> 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,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' C and F (B's grandson) are second and third degrees. ');">⁴¹</span> whereas Rab permittedthe testimony of suchrelatives!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As stated above, v. n. 1. ');">⁴²</span> — Rab agrees with R.Eleazar in one point,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In that he disqualifies the evidence of a relative of the third degree for a relative of the first. ');">⁴³</span> but differsfrom him in another.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That of disqualifying a relative of the third degree for one of the second degree. ');">⁴⁴</span> What is Rab's reason? — Scripture states, Fathers shall not be put to deathfor sons ['al banim]; and sons&nbsp;…:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H] Deut. XXIV, 16. ');">⁴⁵</span> this [the 'and'] teaches the inclusionof another generation [as ineligible to testify]. And R.Eleazar?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why does he rule that even second and third degrees are inadmissible? ');">⁴⁶</span> — Scripture states, 'albanim,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H], 'upon', or 'for sons'. [H] means upon or for. ');">⁴⁷</span> 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</span> 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,&nbsp;… 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</span> R. Ashi said: While we were with'Ulla,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Read with Ms.M. Rab 'Ulla.] ');">⁵⁰</span> 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&nbsp;… 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</span> It once happened that Rab went to buy