## Sanhedrin Daf 27b

###### Sanhedrin 27b:1
[Sanhedrin 27b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/27b:1)

קַתָּא דְבוּרְטְיָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**the handle of a spear [*devortiya*].**


###### Sanhedrin 27b:2
[Sanhedrin 27b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/27b:2)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מַאי דַּעְתָּיךְ? כְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר? רַבִּי מֵאִיר וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי – הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי, וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי הָאָמַר: הוּזַם בְּדִינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת – כָּשֵׁר לְדִינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Abba bar Ya’akov **said to** bar Ḥama: Why did you bring these witnesses? **What do you hold?** Do you hold **like Rabbi Meir,** that one who is guilty of a monetary transgression is disqualified from bearing witness in capital cases too? But in a dispute between **Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yosei, the *halakha*** is **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yosei, and doesn’t Rabbi Yosei say** that if one **was rendered a conspiring witness in** a case of **monetary law he is fit to** testify in cases of **capital law?**


###### Sanhedrin 27b:3
[Sanhedrin 27b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/27b:3)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב פַּפֵּי: הָנֵי מִילֵּי הֵיכָא דְּלָא סְתַם לַן תַּנָּא כְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר. הָכָא סְתַם לַן תַּנָּא כְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Pappi** immediately **said to him: This statement** applies only **where** the ***tanna* did not teach us an unattributed** mishna **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Meir. Here, the *tanna* taught us an unattributed** mishna **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Meir.**


###### Sanhedrin 27b:4
[Sanhedrin 27b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/27b:4)

מִמַּאי? אִילֵּימָא מֵהָא דִּתְנַן: כׇּל הָרָאוּי לָדוּן דִּינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת רָאוּי לָדוּן דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת. מַנִּי? אִילֵּימָא רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הִיא, הָא אִיכָּא עֵד זוֹמֵם דְּמָמוֹן, דְּכָשֵׁר לְדִינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת וּפָסוּל לְדִינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת! אֶלָּא לָאו, רַבִּי מֵאִיר הִיא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **From what** mishna is it seen that the *tanna* taught an unattributed mishna in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir? **If we say** it is **from that which we learned** in a mishna (*Nidda* 49b): **Anyone who is fit to adjudicate** cases of **capital law is fit to adjudicate** cases of **monetary law,** that is inconclusive. Even though one can compare the *halakhot* of disqualifying judges to the *halakhot* of disqualifying witnesses, one cannot cite this as an example of a mishna taught in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir. **Whose** opinion is recorded in this mishna? **If we say it is** the opinion of **Rabbi Yosei, isn’t there** the counterexample of **a conspiring witness in monetary matters, who is fit to** adjudicate cases of **capital law but is disqualified from** adjudicating cases of **monetary law? Rather, is** the ruling of the mishna **not** the opinion of **Rabbi Meir?**


###### Sanhedrin 27b:5
[Sanhedrin 27b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/27b:5)

מִמַּאי? דִּילְמָא בִּפְסוּלֵי יוּחֲסִין קָאֵי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains why this cannot be the source: If this is the unattributed mishna Rav Pappi was referring to, **from where** is it derived that it is the opinion of Rabbi Meir? **Perhaps** the mishna is **referring to** those who are **disqualified** from serving as judges due to their **lineage,** e.g., converts and *mamzerim*, not those who are disqualified due to sin.


###### Sanhedrin 27b:6
[Sanhedrin 27b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/27b:6)

דְּאִי לָא תֵּימָא הָכִי, סֵיפָא דְּקָתָנֵי: יֵשׁ רָאוּי לָדוּן דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת וְאֵין רָאוּי לָדוּן דִּינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת, אַמַּאי אֵינוֹ רָאוּי? דְּאִיתַּזַּם בְּדִינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת רָאוּי לָדוּן דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת? וְהָא דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל פָּסוּל הוּא! אֶלָּא בִּפְסוּל יוּחֲסִין קָאֵי. הָכָא נָמֵי בִּפְסוּל יוּחֲסִין קָאֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**As, if you do not say so,** then with regard to **the latter clause** of that mishna, **which teaches: There is** one who is **fit to adjudicate** cases of **monetary law but is unfit to adjudicate** cases of **capital law,** to whom could this be referring? **Why** would one be **unfit** to adjudicate cases of capital law? If it is referring to one **who was rendered a conspiring witness in** a case of **capital law,** is he **fit to adjudicate** cases of **monetary law? But doesn’t everyone agree** that **he is disqualified? Rather,** the mishna is clearly **referring to** those who are **disqualified** from serving as judges due to their **lineage. Here too,** in the first clause, the mishna is **referring to** those who are **disqualified** from serving as judges due to their **lineage.**


###### Sanhedrin 27b:7
[Sanhedrin 27b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/27b:7)

אֶלָּא, הָכָא קָא סָתַם לַן תְּנָא, דִּתְנַן: אֵלּוּ הֵן הַפְּסוּלִים – הַמְשַׂחֵק בְּקוּבְיָא, וּמַלְוֵי בְּרִבִּית, וּמַפְרִיחֵי יוֹנִים, וְסוֹחֲרֵי שְׁבִיעִית, וְהָעֲבָדִים. זֶה הַכְּלָל: כׇּל עֵדוּת שֶׁאֵין הָאִשָּׁה כְּשֵׁירָה לָהּ, אַף הֵן אֵין כְּשֵׁירִין לָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, the *tanna* taught us an unattributed** mishna **here, as we learned** in a mishna (*Rosh HaShana* 22a): **These** people **are disqualified** from bearing witness, as they are considered wicked and guilty of monetary transgressions: **One who plays with dice, and those who lend** money **with interest, and those who fly pigeons, and merchants** who trade in produce of the **Sabbatical** Year. **And** Canaanite **slaves** are also disqualified. **This is the principle:** For **any testimony for which a woman is not fit, these too are not fit.** Although in certain cases a woman’s testimony is accepted, e.g., testimony concerning the death of someone’s husband, in most cases her testimony is not valid.


###### Sanhedrin 27b:8
[Sanhedrin 27b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/27b:8)

מַנִּי? אִילֵּימָא רַבִּי יוֹסֵי – וְהָאִיכָּא עֵדוּת בְּדִינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת, שֶׁאֵין הָאִשָּׁה כְּשֵׁרָה לָהּ, וְהֵן כְּשֵׁרִין לַהּ? אֶלָּא לָאו רַבִּי מֵאִיר הִיא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
In accordance with **whose** opinion is this mishna? **If we say** it is the opinion of **Rabbi Yosei,** that is difficult: **But isn’t there testimony in** cases of **capital law, for which a woman is not fit but for which** those considered wicked due to having committed monetary transgressions **are fit? Rather, is it not** the opinion of **Rabbi Meir,** who maintains these people are disqualified from testifying in cases of capital law as well? Apparently, this unspecified mishna follows the opinion of Rabbi Meir. Therefore, the *halakha* is in accordance with his opinion.


###### Sanhedrin 27b:9
[Sanhedrin 27b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/27b:9)

קָם בַּר חָמָא, נַשְּׁקֵיהּ אַכַּרְעֵיהּ, וְקַבְּלֵיהּ לִכְרָגֵיהּ דְּכוּלֵּי שְׁנֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Based on this conclusion, one of the witnesses who testified against bar Ḥama with regard to the murder was disqualified, and bar Ḥama was acquitted. **Bar Ḥama** then **arose and kissed** Rabbi Pappi **on his feet and accepted** upon himself **to** pay **his tax [*karga*] for all of his years.**


###### Sanhedrin 27b:10
[Sanhedrin 27b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/27b:10)

**מַתְנִי׳** וְאֵלּוּ הֵן הַקְּרוֹבִין: אָחִיו, וַאֲחִי אָבִיו, וַאֲחִי אִמּוֹ, וּבַעַל אֲחוֹתוֹ, וּבַעַל אֲחוֹת אָבִיו, וּבַעַל אֲחוֹת אִמּוֹ, וּבַעַל אִמּוֹ, וְחָמִיו, וְגִיסוֹ. הֵן וּבְנֵיהֶן וְחַתְנֵיהֶן, וְחוֹרְגוֹ לְבַדּוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** **And these are** the ones disqualified from bearing witness or from serving as judges due to their status as **relatives** of one of the litigants or of each other: One’s **brother, and his paternal uncle, and his maternal uncle, and his sister’s husband, and the husband of his paternal aunt, and the husband of his maternal aunt, and his mother’s husband, and his father-in-law, and his brother-in-law,** i.e., the husband of his wife’s sister. **They** themselves, all of these people, **and** also **their sons, and their sons-in-law** are considered relatives. **And his stepson alone** is disqualified, but not his stepson’s sons or sons-in-law.


###### Sanhedrin 27b:11
[Sanhedrin 27b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/27b:11)

אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי: זוֹ מִשְׁנַת רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, אֲבָל מִשְׁנָה רִאשׁוֹנָה – דּוֹדוֹ וּבֶן דּוֹדוֹ וְכׇל הָרָאוּי לְיוֹרְשׁוֹ, וְכׇל הַקָּרוֹב לוֹ בְּאוֹתָהּ שָׁעָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yosei says: This** aforementioned *halakha* **is Rabbi Akiva’s** version of the **mishna. But the initial** version of the **mishna** reads as follows: **His uncle and the son of his uncle, and anyone who is fit to inherit** from **him.** Only paternal relatives, who are fit to inherit from him, are disqualified; maternal relatives, who do not inherit from him, are not disqualified from bearing witness about him or from adjudicating his case. **And** the *halakha* disqualifying a relative from bearing witness or serving as a judge is referring to **anyone who is related to him at the time** of the trial.


###### Sanhedrin 27b:12
[Sanhedrin 27b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/27b:12)

הָיָה קָרוֹב וְנִתְרַחֵק, הֲרֵי זֶה כָּשֵׁר. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אֲפִילּוּ מֵתָה בִּתּוֹ וְיֵשׁ לוֹ בָּנִים מִמֶּנָּה, הֲרֵי זֶה קָרוֹב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If one **was** once **a relative and became unrelated** by the time of the trial, e.g., he married the daughter of one of the litigants, but she died or they were divorced, in this case **he is fit. Rabbi Yehuda says: Even if his daughter died but** her husband, the former son-in-law, **has children from her, he is** still considered **a relative;** the children cause them to remain related.


###### Sanhedrin 27b:13
[Sanhedrin 27b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/27b:13)

הָאוֹהֵב וְהַשּׂוֹנֵא. אוֹהֵב – זֶה שׁוֹשְׁבִינוֹ. שׂוֹנֵא – כֹּל שֶׁלֹּא דִּבֵּר עִמּוֹ שְׁלֹשָׁה יָמִים בְּאֵיבָה. אָמְרוּ לוֹ: לֹא נֶחְשְׁדוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל עַל כָּךְ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**One who loves or one who hates** one of the litigants is also disqualified. With regard to one who **loves** one of the litigants, **this** is referring to **his groomsman.** One who **hates** is referring to **anyone who, out of enmity, did not speak with** the litigant for **three days.** The Rabbis **said to** Rabbi Yehuda: **The Jewish people are not suspected of** bearing false witness due to love or hate.


###### Sanhedrin 27b:14
[Sanhedrin 27b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/27b:14)

**גְּמָ׳** מְנָהָנֵי מִילֵּי? דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״לֹא יוּמְתוּ אָבוֹת עַל בָּנִים״. מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר? אִם לְלַמֵּד שֶׁלֹּא יוּמְתוּ אָבוֹת בַּעֲוֹן בָּנִים וּבָנִים בַּעֲוֹן אָבוֹת, הֲרֵי כְּבָר נֶאֱמַר: ״אִישׁ בְּחֶטְאוֹ יוּמָתוּ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** **From where is this matter,** that relatives are disqualified from bearing witness, derived? The Gemara answers: It is **as the Sages taught** in a *baraita*: **“The fathers shall not be put to death for the children,** neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers; every man shall be put to death for his own sin” (Deuteronomy 24:16). **Why** must **the verse state** this first clause? **If** it is **to teach that the fathers shall not be put to death for the sin of the children, nor** shall **the children** be put to death **for the sin of the fathers,** this is unnecessary, as **it is in any event stated: “Every man shall be put to death for his own sin.”**


###### Sanhedrin 27b:15
[Sanhedrin 27b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/27b:15)

אֶלָּא, ״לֹא יוּמְתוּ אָבוֹת עַל בָּנִים״ – בְּעֵדוּת בָּנִים, ״וּבָנִים לֹא יוּמְתוּ עַל אָבוֹת״ – בְּעֵדוּת אָבוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** the statement **“The fathers shall not be put to death for the children”** should be interpreted to mean that they shall not be put to death **by the testimony of the children,** and the statement **“Neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers”** should be interpreted to mean that they shall not be put to death **by the testimony of the fathers.**


###### Sanhedrin 27b:16
[Sanhedrin 27b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/27b:16)

וּבָנִים בַּעֲוֹן אָבוֹת לָא? וְהָכְתִיב: ״פֹּקֵד עֲוֹן אָבוֹת עַל בָּנִים״!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And are children not** put to death **for the sin of the fathers? But isn’t it written: “Visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children,** and upon the children’s children, unto the third and unto the fourth generation” (Exodus 34:7)?


###### Sanhedrin 27b:17
[Sanhedrin 27b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/27b:17)

הָתָם, כְּשֶׁאוֹחֲזִין מַעֲשֵׂה אֲבוֹתֵיהֶן בִּידֵיהֶן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **There,** the verse is referring to a situation **where** the children **adopt the actions of their ancestors as their own.** If they do not behave like their ancestors they are not punished for their ancestors’ sins.


###### Sanhedrin 27b:18
[Sanhedrin 27b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/27b:18)

כִּדְתַנְיָא: ״וְאַף בַּעֲוֹנֹת אֲבֹתָם אִתָּם יִמָּקּוּ״ – כְּשֶׁאוֹחֲזִין מַעֲשֵׂה אֲבוֹתֵיהֶם בִּידֵיהֶם. אַתָּה אוֹמֵר כְּשֶׁאוֹחֲזִין, אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא כְּשֶׁאֵין אוֹחֲזִין? כְּשֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר ״אִישׁ בְּחֶטְאוֹ יוּמָתוּ״, הֲרֵי כְּשֶׁאוֹחֲזִין מַעֲשֵׂה אֲבוֹתֵיהֶן בִּידֵיהֶן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
This is **as it is taught** in a *baraita*: The verse: **“And also in the iniquities of their fathers shall they pine away with them”** (Leviticus 26:39), is referring to a case **where they adopt the actions of their ancestors as their own.** Do **you say** that it is referring specifically to a case **where they adopt** the actions of their ancestors, **or** perhaps it applies even **where they do not adopt** their ancestors’ actions? **When** the verse **states: “Every man shall be put to death for his own sin,”** the Torah explicates that one is not put to death if he did not sin. Therefore, the verse in Leviticus is clearly referring to a case **where they adopt the actions of their ancestors as their own.**


###### Sanhedrin 27b:19
[Sanhedrin 27b:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/27b:19)

וְלָא? וְהָכְתִיב: ״וְכָשְׁלוּ אִישׁ בְּאָחִיו״ – אִישׁ בַּעֲוֹן אָחִיו, מְלַמֵּד שֶׁכּוּלָּן עֲרֵבִים זֶה בָּזֶה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** are descendants **not** punished for the sins of their ancestors unless they adopt their behavior? **But isn’t it written: “And they shall stumble one upon another”** (Leviticus 26:37)? This verse is homiletically interpreted to mean that the Jewish people shall stumble, **one due to the iniquity of another,** i.e., they are punished for each other’s sins, which **teaches that all** Jews are considered **guarantors,** i.e., responsible, **for one another.**


###### Sanhedrin 27b:20
[Sanhedrin 27b:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/27b:20)

הָתָם, שֶׁהָיָה בְּיָדָם לִמְחוֹת וְלֹא מִיחוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **There,** in the verse in Leviticus, the reference is to a case **where** others **had the ability to protest** the sin **but they did not protest.** Consequently, they are punished for not protesting, regardless of any familial relationship they may have with the sinner.