סנהדרין 27 — Soncino English Talmud

¹An objection is raised: Do not accept the wicked as witness; [this means,] Do not accept a despoiler as witness; e.g., robbers, and those who have trespassed by [false] oaths. Surely this refers to both a vain oath and an oath concerning money matters? — No; in both cases, oaths concerning money matters are alluded to; then why state 'oaths' [plural]? — [To indicate] oaths in general. An objection is raised: Do not accept the wicked as witness; [this means,] Do not accept a despoiler as witness, e.g., robbers and usurers. This refutation of Abaye's view is unanswerable. Shall we say that their difference is identical with that of Tannaim? [For it has been taught:] A witness proved a Zomem is unfit [to testify] in all Biblical matters: this is R. Meir's view. R. Jose said: That is only if he has been proved a Zomem in capital cases; but if in monetary cases, his evidence is valid in capital charges. Shall we affirm, Abaye agrees with R. Meir, and Raba with R. Jose? 'Abaye agrees with R. Meir,' who maintains that we impose [disqualification] in respect of major cases as a result of a minor transgression. 'And Raba with R. Jose,' who says, We impose [disqualification] in respect of minor matters as a result of a major transgression; but not the reverse! — No! On R. Jose's opinion, there is no dispute at all. They differ only on the basis of R. Meir's opinion. Abaye certainly agrees with R. Meir. But Raba [may argue]: So far R. Meir gives his ruling only in the case of a Zomem in a monetary case, who is evil in the sight of God and man. But in this case, since he is evil in the sight of God alone, even R. Meir does not disqualify him. And the law rests with Abaye. But has he not been refuted? — That [Baraitha which refuted him] represents the opinion of R. Jose. Granted; yet even so, [wherever] R. Meir and R. Jose [are in dispute], the halachah rests with R. Jose! — In the other case it is different, for the Tanna has taught R. Meir's view anonymously. And where does this occur? — [As we find] in the case of Bar Hama, who committed murder. The Resh Galutha said to R. Abba b. Jacob: Go and investigate the matter, if he is definitely the murderer, dim his eyes. Two witnesses thereafter appeared and testified to his definite guilt; but he [Bar Hama] produced two other witnesses, who gave evidence against one of the accusing witnesses. One deposed: In my presence this witness stole a kab of barley; the other testified: In my presence he stole^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ

^ᵃnote:One who violates another's rights to satisfy his own greed.
^ᵇnote:I.e., perjurers.
^ᶜnote:E.g., an oath that a pillar of stone is made of stone, which is a needless oath.
^ᵈnote:As follows from the plural, oaths. Hence the motive for his evil act need not be lust for money, in contradistinction to Raba's opinion.
^ᵉnote:Actually, only one case is mentioned, viz., oaths. But the phrase is used on the questioner's hypothesis (v. n. 6), and the answer proceeds to demolish that assumption.
^ᶠnote:I.e., such as are made in litigation.
^ᵍnote:Hence his wickedness must, to disqualify him, have been prompted by gain for money only, in contradistinction to the opinion of Abaye.
^ʰnote:For, having been found dishonest in grave matters, his evidence is all the more suspect in matters less grave.
^ⁱnote:And the case under discussion is similar: that of a provocative Mumar only; nevertheless, he is declared incompetent to testify in a civil suit, though false evidence in such a case is evil both in the sight of God and man, and hence constitutes a greater transgression.
^ʲnote:Who maintains that the evidence of a man who transgressed a ritual law (an evil in the sight of God alone) need not be doubted in a civil case.
^ᵏnote:E.g., is the case of a Zomem in monetary cases.
^ˡnote:E.g., in the case of a Zomem in capital cases.
^ᵐnote:Abaye can certainly not agree with R. Jose, for he can in no wise hold that a Zomem in civil cases is eligible in capital cases.
^ⁿnote:Such as is involved in the open defiance of the ritual law by eating Nebelah.
^ᵒnote:In accordance with the preceding argument (cf. n. 3). Abaye, however, rules as does R. Meir.
^ᵖnote:Cf. 'Er. 46b. This is a general rule.
^ᵠnote:It is a general principle that if an individual view is stated anonymously, as though it were a general opinion, the halachah rests with it.
^ʳnote:Exilarch.
^ˢnote:[Read with Ms.M., R. Aha b. Jacob, v. D.S. a.l.]
^ᵗnote:Perhaps, 'blind him,' 'put out his eyes.' Capital punishment was abolished four decades before the fall of Jerusalem (cf. infra 41a). Others, however, interpret it of Kenas, i.e., confiscation of property.

²MISHNAH. NOW, THE FOLLOWING ARE REGARDED AS RELATIONS; A BROTHER, FATHER'S BROTHER, MOTHER'S BROTHER, SISTER'S HUSBAND, THE HUSBAND OF ONE'S PATERNAL OR MATERNAL AUNT, A STEP-FATHER, FATHER-IN-LAW, AND BROTHER-IN-LAW [ON THE SIDE OF ONE'S WIFE]; ALL THESE WITH THEIR SONS AND SONS-IN-LAW; AND ONE'S STEPSON HIMSELF. R. JOSE SAID: THIS IS [THE TEXT OF] R. AKIBA'S MISHNAH; BUT THE FIRST MISHNAH [READS]: AN UNCLE AND HIS SON, AND WHOEVER IS ELIGIBLE TO BE ONE'S HEIR. AND ALL WHO WERE RELATED AT THAT MOMENT. IF ONE HAD BEEN RELATED, BUT SUBSEQUENTLY CEASED TO BE SO, HE IS ELIGIBLE. R. JUDAH HOLDS; EVEN IF ONE'S DAUGHTER HAS DIED, BUT HE [THE SON-IN-LAW] HAS HAD CHILDREN BY HER, HE STILL RANKS AS A KINSMAN. FURTHER, A FRIEND OR AN ENEMY [IS INELIGIBLE]. BY 'FRIEND' ONE'S GROOMSMAN IS MEANT; BY 'ENEMY', ANY MAN WHO, BY REASON OF ENMITY, HAS NOT SPOKEN TO ONE FOR THREE DAYS, IS UNDERSTOOD.TO THIS THE RABBIS REPLIED: ISRAELITES, AS A RULE, ARE NOT TO BE SUSPECTED ON SUCH GROUNDS. GEMARA. Whence is this law derived? — From what our Rabbis taught: The fathers shall not be put to death for [on account of] the children. What does this teach? Is it that fathers shall not be executed for sins committed by their children and vice versa? But is it not already explicitly stated, Every man shall be put to death for his own sin? Hence, Fathers shall not be put to death on account of children, must mean, fathers shall not be put to death on the testimony of their sons and similarly, and sons shall not be put to death on account of fathers, means, nor sons on the testimony of their fathers. [To revert to the text.] Are not children then to be put to death for the sins committed by their parents? Is it not written, Visiting the iniquities of the fathers upon the children? — There the reference is to children who follow their parents' footsteps. As it has been taught: And also in the iniquities of their parents shall they pine away with them, [i.e.,] if they hold fast to the evil doings of their fathers. Thou sayest thus: Yet perhaps it is not so, but true even if they do not hold fast to their [evil] doings? When Scripture states, Every man shall be put to death for his own sin, [it must refer to those who do not hold fast to their fathers' ways. Then how shall we interpret, And also in the iniquities of their fathers shall they pine away with them?]— As referring to those who continue in the ways of their fathers. But do they [really] not [suffer for the sins committed by others]? Is it not written, And they shall stumble one upon another, meaning, One [will stumble] through the sin of the other, which teaches that all are held responsible for one another? — There the reference is to such as had the power to restrain [their fellowmen from evil] but did not. ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ^ᵃᵐ^ᵃⁿ^ᵃᵒ

^ᵘnote:Of any of the parties, and so incompetent to act as judge or witness, according to an earlier Mishnah.
^ᵛnote:The editio princeps of the Mishnah adds (and begins with) ONE'S FATHER.
^ʷnote:I.e., he alone, and not his children etc.
^ˣnote:V. n. 7.
^ʸnote:A collection of Halachoth the compilation of which began, according to Gaonic accounts, as early as Hillel and Shammai. When owing to political disorders many Halachoth of the Mishnah had been forgotten and their words had become a subject of controversy, the one Mishnah developed into many. This multiplication of Mishnahs occurred during the period of the later Beth Hillel and Beth Shammai. In order to avert the danger which threatened its uniformity a synod was convened in Jabneh to examine differences and to consider revision. But as the mass of material grew and with it the need for a methodical arrangement, R. Akiba undertook the task of sifting the material and editing it systematically in various sections (Sedarim) and treatises (Massekoth). J.E. vol. VIII, p. 610.
^ᶻnote:[H] is the brother of one's father.
^ᵃᵃnote:Cf. B.B. 108a. These words belong, according to Rashi, to the First Mishnah; according to Maimonides and Bertinoro, to the Mishnah of R. Akiba.
^ᵃᵇnote:When the incident which they wished to attest occurred, though they are no longer so at the time they wish to testify in court.
^ᵃᶜnote:Lit., 'became estranged', e.g., a son-in-law whose wife, the litigant's daughter, had died, or had been divorced before the incident occurred.
^ᵃᵈnote:'Best man' at marriage. Generally an intimate friend of one's youth, v. B.B. (Sonc. ed.) p. 618, n. 10.
^ᵃᵉnote:I.e., they are not suspected of giving false evidence through friendship or enmity; hence they are competent to testify. Nevertheless, they cannot act as judges, because it is difficult for them to be unbiassed and impartial.
^ᵃᶠnote:Deut. XXIV, 16. Fathers and sons are unnecessarily in the plural. The Rabbis deduce from this that the text refers to fathers who are brothers, whose relationship is next to that of father and son, so that not only the kinship between one another but also that between one and the son of the other debars from giving evidence. The following kinsmen are thus derived from the text: Father, son, brother and nephew. V. infra.
^ᵃᵍnote:Deut. XXIV, 16, cf. Lev. XXVI, 39.
^ᵃʰnote:Ex. XXXIV, 7.
^ᵃⁱnote:Lit., 'who hold in their hands the deeds of their parents'.
^ᵃʲnote:Lev. XXVI, 39.
^ᵃᵏnote:I.e., that they are still held accountable for their fathers' iniquities.
^ᵃˡnote:Deut. XXIV, 16.
^ᵃᵐnote:Cf. Ber. 7a.
^ᵃⁿnote:Lev. XXVI, 37, lit., 'upon his brother'. The prefix [H] is here taken in the sense of 'because of'.
^ᵃᵒnote:Shewing that the iniquities of one may be borne by the other.