## Sanhedrin Daf 28a

###### Sanhedrin 28a:1
[Sanhedrin 28a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/28a:1)

אַשְׁכְּחַן אָבוֹת לְבָנִים, וּבָנִים לְאָבוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara resumes its discussion of the source for the disqualification of relatives from bearing witness. From the fact that the verse: “The fathers shall not be put to death for the children” (Deuteronomy 24:16), is not phrased in the singular, i.e., A father shall not be put to death for his child, it is derived that not only are a father and child disqualified from bearing witness about one another, but closely related relatives, i.e., brothers, are also disqualified from bearing witness about each other’s children. Consequently, **we found** a source for the disqualification of **fathers** from bearing witness **about** their **children** or the children of their brothers, **and** for the disqualification of **children** from bearing witness **about** their **fathers** or their fathers’ brothers.


###### Sanhedrin 28a:2
[Sanhedrin 28a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/28a:2)

וְכׇל שֶׁכֵּן אָבוֹת לַהֲדָדֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And all the more so,** the related **fathers,** e.g., brothers, are disqualified from bearing witness **about each other,** as they are certainly more closely related to each other than are a nephew and an uncle.


###### Sanhedrin 28a:3
[Sanhedrin 28a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/28a:3)

בָּנִים לְבָנִים – מְנָלַן?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
But **from where do we** derive that one brother’s **children** cannot bear witness **about** the **children** of the other brother?


###### Sanhedrin 28a:4
[Sanhedrin 28a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/28a:4)

אִם כֵּן, לִיכְתּוֹב קְרָא: ״לֹא יוּמְתוּ אָבוֹת עַל בֵּן״! מַאי ״בָּנִים״? דַּאֲפִילּוּ בָּנִים לַהֲדָדֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **If so,** if the children of one brother can bear witness about the children of the other brother, **let the verse write: The fathers shall not be put to death for the child.** For **what** reason is **“children”** written, in the plural? It is derived from here **that even children** of brothers are disqualified from bearing witness **about each other.**


###### Sanhedrin 28a:5
[Sanhedrin 28a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/28a:5)

אַשְׁכְּחַן בָּנִים לַהֲדָדֵי, בָּנִים לְעָלְמָא מְנָלַן?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**We found** a source for the *halakha* that the **children** of brothers cannot bear witness **about each other. From where do we** derive that the **children** of brothers cannot bear witness together **about others?**


###### Sanhedrin 28a:6
[Sanhedrin 28a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/28a:6)

אָמַר רָמֵי בַּר חָמָא: סְבָרָא הוּא, כִּדְתַנְיָא: אֵין הָעֵדִים נַעֲשִׂין זוֹמְמִין עַד שֶׁיִּזּוֹמּוּ שְׁנֵיהֶן. וְאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ בָּנִים לְעָלְמָא כְּשֵׁרִין, נִמְצָא עֵד זוֹמֵם נֶהֱרָג בְּעֵדוּת אָחִיו.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rami bar Ḥama says:** This *halakha* **is** based on **logical reasoning,** and is not derived from a verse. This is **as it is taught** in a *baraita*: **The witnesses are not rendered conspiring** witnesses **unless they are both rendered conspiring** witnesses. **And** therefore, **if it enters your mind** that related **children are fit** to bear witness together **about others, a conspiring witness** can be **found to be executed based on the testimony of his brother,** i.e., his relative. Since a conspiring witness is executed for his testimony only if his co-witness is also rendered a conspiring witness, the testimony of his co-witness, who is a relative, is what causes him to be executed. This is tantamount to relatives bearing witness about each other. Therefore, relatives cannot serve as witnesses together.


###### Sanhedrin 28a:7
[Sanhedrin 28a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/28a:7)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא: וְלִיטַעְמָיךְ, הָא דִּתְנַן: שְׁלֹשָׁה אַחִין וְאֶחָד מִצְטָרֵף עִמָּהֶן – הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ שָׁלֹשׁ עֵדִיּוֹת, וְהֵן עֵדוּת אַחַת לַהֲזָמָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said to him: But according to your reasoning,** there is a difficulty arising from **that which we learned** in a mishna (*Bava Batra* 56b): If one occupied land for three years, this serves in court as proof that he is the legal owner. If **three brothers** testify to his three-year possession of the land, with each one testifying separately about one year, **and one** unrelated individual **joins with** each of the brothers as the second witness, **these are** considered **three** distinct **testimonies** and are therefore accepted by the court. If they were to be considered one testimony it would not be accepted, as brothers may not testify together. **But they are** considered **one testimony for** the purpose of rendering them **conspiring** witnesses. In other words, they are punished only if all six of the witnesses are rendered conspiring witnesses, and the liability is divided among them.


###### Sanhedrin 28a:8
[Sanhedrin 28a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/28a:8)

נִמְצָא עֵד זוֹמֵם מְשַׁלֵּם מָמוֹן בְּעֵדוּת אָחִיו.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rava states his objection: If so, **a conspiring witness** can be **found** to be **paying money due to the testimony of his brother,** and nevertheless, the brothers’ testimony is not disqualified.


###### Sanhedrin 28a:9
[Sanhedrin 28a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/28a:9)

אֶלָּא, הֲזָמָה מֵעָלְמָא קָאָתֵי. הָכָא נָמֵי, הֲזָמָה מֵעָלְמָא קָאָתֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** this is clearly not considered tantamount to brothers bearing witness about each other, as the **rendering** of one as **a conspiring witness comes** not from his co-witness but **from others,** i.e., the witnesses who testify that he had been with them. **Here too,** it cannot be proven logically that relatives are disqualified from bearing witness together, as the **rendering** of one as **a conspiring witness comes from others.**


###### Sanhedrin 28a:10
[Sanhedrin 28a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/28a:10)

אֶלָּא, אִם כֵּן לִיכְתּוֹב קְרָא ״וּבֵן עַל אָבוֹת״, אִי נָמֵי ״הֵם עַל אָבוֹת״. מַאי ״וּבָנִים״? אֲפִילּוּ בָּנִים לְעָלְמָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** the *halakha* that relatives are disqualified from bearing witness together is derived from a different source: **If** it is **so** that relatives can bear witness together, **let the verse write: And a child** shall not be put to death **for the fathers, or: They** shall not be put to death **for the fathers.** For **what** reason is **“and the children”** written in the plural? This indicates that related **children** are disqualified from bearing witness **even about others.**


###### Sanhedrin 28a:11
[Sanhedrin 28a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/28a:11)

אַשְׁכְּחַן קְרוֹבֵי הָאָב, קְרוֹבֵי הָאֵם מְנָלַן? אָמַר קְרָא: ״אָבוֹת״ ״אָבוֹת״ תְּרֵי זִימְנֵי. אִם אֵינוֹ עִנְיָן לִקְרוֹבֵי הָאָב, תְּנֵיהוּ עִנְיָן לִקְרוֹבֵי הָאֵם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **We found** a source for the disqualification of **paternal relatives. From where do we** derive the disqualification of **maternal relatives?** The Gemara answers: **The verse states “fathers,” “fathers,”** i.e., it states the word **twice.** This repetition is unnecessary, as the verse could have stated: And the children shall not be put to death for them. **If** the superfluous word “fathers” **is not** needed to teach the **matter of paternal relatives,** as this matter was already derived from the verse, **apply it** to the **matter of maternal relatives.**


###### Sanhedrin 28a:12
[Sanhedrin 28a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/28a:12)

אַשְׁכְּחַן לְחוֹבָה, לִזְכוּת מְנָא לַן?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **We found** a source for the *halakha* that one cannot bear witness **to** the **detriment** of his relative, as the verse states: “Shall not be put to death.” **From where do we** derive that one cannot testify **to** the **benefit** of his relative?


###### Sanhedrin 28a:13
[Sanhedrin 28a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/28a:13)

אָמַר קְרָא: ״יוּמְתוּ״, ״יוּמְתוּ״ – תְּרֵי זִימְנֵי. אִם אֵינוֹ עִנְיָן לְחוֹבָה, תְּנֵהוּ עִנְיָן לִזְכוּת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **The verse states** the term **“shall** not **be put to death,” “shall** not **be put to death,” twice. If** it **is not** needed to teach the **matter** of testimony **to** the **detriment** of one’s relative, as this *halakha* was already derived from the verse, **apply it** to the **matter of** testimony **to** the **benefit** of one’s relative.


###### Sanhedrin 28a:14
[Sanhedrin 28a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/28a:14)

אַשְׁכְּחַן בְּדִינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת, בְּדִינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת מְנָלַן?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **We found** a source for the disqualification of relatives **in** cases of **capital law,** as the verse is referring to execution. **From where do we** derive this *halakha* **in** cases of **monetary law?**


###### Sanhedrin 28a:15
[Sanhedrin 28a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/28a:15)

אָמַר קְרָא: ״מִשְׁפַּט אֶחָד יִהְיֶה לָכֶם״ – מִשְׁפָּט הַשָּׁוֶה לָכֶם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers that **the verse states: “You shall have one manner of law”** (Leviticus 24:22), which is interpreted to mean: **A law that is equal for you.** In other words, monetary law and capital law essentially follow the same guidelines.


###### Sanhedrin 28a:16
[Sanhedrin 28a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/28a:16)

אָמַר רַב: אֲחִי אַבָּא לֹא יָעִיד לִי, הוּא וּבְנוֹ וַחֲתָנוֹ. אַף אֲנִי לֹא אָעִיד לוֹ, אֲנִי וּבְנִי וַחֲתָנִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rav says: My paternal uncle will not testify about me,** neither **he, nor his son, nor his son-in-law,** in accordance with the ruling of the mishna. **Furthermore, I will not testify about him,** neither **I, nor my son, nor my son-in-law.**


###### Sanhedrin 28a:17
[Sanhedrin 28a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/28a:17)

וְאַמַּאי? הָוֵה לֵיהּ שְׁלִישִׁי בְּרִאשׁוֹן, וַאֲנַן שֵׁנִי בְּשֵׁנִי תְּנַן, שְׁנֵי בְּרִאשׁוֹן תְּנַן, שְׁלִישִׁי בְּרִאשׁוֹן לָא תְּנַן!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And why,** for example, can Rav’s son not testify about the brother of his father’s father? But **it is** the testimony of a member of the **third** generation **with regard to** a related member of the **first** generation, as there is a two-generation difference between them. **And we learned** in the mishna that a member of the **second** generation cannot testify **about** a member of the **second** generation, e.g., one cannot testify about the son of his paternal uncle. **We** also **learned** that a member of the **second** generation cannot testify **about** a member of the **first** generation, e.g., one cannot testify about his uncle. But **we did not learn** that a member of the **third** generation cannot testify **about** a member of the **first** generation.


###### Sanhedrin 28a:18
[Sanhedrin 28a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/28a:18)

מַאי ״חֲתָנוֹ״ דְּקָתָנֵי בְּמַתְנִיתִין? חֲתַן בְּנוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: In the statement **that is taught in the mishna:** They themselves, and their sons, and their sons-in-law are considered relatives, **what** is the ruling of the mishna concerning **his son-in-law** referring to? It is referring to **the son-in-law of his son.** Accordingly, the mishna disqualifies the testimony of a member of the third generation about a member of the first generation.


###### Sanhedrin 28a:19
[Sanhedrin 28a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/28a:19)

וְלִיתְנֵי ״בֶּן בְּנוֹ״!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But** if so, **let** the mishna **teach:** And his son and **the son of his son,** instead of: His son-in-law. This would be a more straightforward manner of conveying the *halakha* with regard to a member of the third generation testifying about a member of the first generation.


###### Sanhedrin 28a:20
[Sanhedrin 28a:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/28a:20)

מִילְּתָא אַגַּב אוֹרְחֵיהּ קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן, דְּבַעַל כְּאִשְׁתּוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: By mentioning his son-in-law, the mishna **teaches us a matter in passing: That** with regard to the different levels of familial relationships, **a husband is like his wife.** Therefore, there is no difference between one’s son and one’s son-in-law.


###### Sanhedrin 28a:21
[Sanhedrin 28a:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/28a:21)

וְאֶלָּא הָא דְתָנֵי רַבִּי חִיָּיא: שְׁמוֹנָה אָבוֹת, שֶׁהֵן עֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבָּעָה – הָנֵי תְּלָתִין וְתַרְתֵּין הָוֵי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But** if the mishna is referring to the son-in-law of his son, a difficulty is posed by **that which Rabbi Ḥiyya teaches** in a *baraita*: **Eight fathers,** i.e., eight principal relatives mentioned in the mishna, are disqualified, **which are twenty-four** including the son and son-in-law of each. If the mishna is referring to one’s grandson **these are thirty-two,** as the son, the son-in-law, and the grandson of each are included.


###### Sanhedrin 28a:22
[Sanhedrin 28a:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/28a:22)

אֶלָּא, לְעוֹלָם חֲתָנוֹ מַמָּשׁ. וְאַמַּאי קָרֵי לֵיהּ ״חֲתַן בְּנוֹ״? כֵּיוָן דְּמֵעָלְמָא קָאָתֵי, כְּדוֹר אַחֵר דָּמֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara consequently rejects the explanation that the mishna is referring to the son-in-law of one’s son: **Rather,** the mishna is **in fact** referring to **his actual son-in-law. And why does** Rav **refer to him as the son-in-law of his son,** deriving from this case that a member of the third generation cannot testify about a member of the first generation? **Since** one’s son-in-law **comes from outside** the family he is considered a more distant relative than his son, **as if** he belongs to **another generation.**


###### Sanhedrin 28a:23
[Sanhedrin 28a:23](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/28a:23)

אִי הָכִי, הָוֵה לֵיהּ שְׁלִישִׁי בְּשֵׁנִי, וְרַב אַכְשַׁר שְׁלִישִׁי בְּשֵׁנִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges this: **If that is so,** then the testimony of an individual with regard to the son-in-law of his father **is** equivalent **to** that of a member of the **third** generation **with regard to** a member of the **second** generation. **And Rav** is known to have **deemed** a member of the **third** generation **fit** to bear witness **about** a member of the **second** generation.


###### Sanhedrin 28a:24
[Sanhedrin 28a:24](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/28a:24)

אֶלָּא רַב דְּאָמַר כְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר. דְּתַנְיָא: רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר, כְּשֵׁם שֶׁאֲחִי אַבָּא לֹא יָעִיד לִי – הוּא וּבְנוֹ וַחֲתָנוֹ, כָּךְ בֶּן אֲחִי אַבָּא לֹא יָעִיד לִי – הוּא וּבְנוֹ וַחֲתָנוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, Rav stated** his ruling not in accordance with the mishna, but **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Elazar, as it is taught** in a *baraita* that **Rabbi Elazar says: Just as my paternal uncle will not testify about me,** neither **he, nor his son, nor his son-in-law, so too, the son of my paternal uncle will not testify about me,** neither **he, nor his son, nor his son-in-law.** Accordingly, one cannot testify about the grandchild of his brother.


###### Sanhedrin 28a:25
[Sanhedrin 28a:25](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/28a:25)

וְאַכַּתִּי הָוֵה לֵיהּ שְׁלִישִׁי בְּשֵׁנִי, וְרַב אַכְשַׁר שְׁלִישִׁי בְּשֵׁנִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But still,** according to Rabbi Elazar, the grandson of one’s uncle cannot testify about his great-great uncle, which **is** the testimony of a member of the **third** generation **about** a member of the **second** generation; **and Rav deemed** a member of the **third** generation **fit** to bear witness **about** a member of the **second** generation.


###### Sanhedrin 28a:26
[Sanhedrin 28a:26](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/28a:26)

רַב סָבַר לֵיהּ כְּוָותֵיהּ בַּחֲדָא, וּפְלִיג עֲלֵיהּ בַּחֲדָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Rav holds in accordance with** Rabbi Elazar’s opinion **in one** case, i.e., he disqualifies testimony of a member of the third generation with regard to a member of the first generation, **and he disagrees with him in one** case, i.e., he does not disqualify the testimony of a member of the third generation about a member of the second generation.


###### Sanhedrin 28a:27
[Sanhedrin 28a:27](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/28a:27)

מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַב? דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״לֹא יוּמְתוּ אָבוֹת עַל בָּנִים וּבָנִים״, לְרַבּוֹת דּוֹר אַחֵר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**What is the reason** for the opinion **of Rav?** It is **as the verse states: “The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, and the children** shall not be put to death for the fathers.” The phrase “for the children, and the children” is interpreted **to include another generation,** the grandchildren of one’s brother; they are also disqualified.


###### Sanhedrin 28a:28
[Sanhedrin 28a:28](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/28a:28)

וְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר, ״עַל בָּנִים״ אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא: פְּסוּלֵי דְאָבוֹת שְׁדִי אַבָּנִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rabbi Elazar** derives his opinion from the fact that **the Merciful One states: “For the children,”** which is interpreted to mean that **the ones disqualified** from bearing witness **about the fathers** are **cast on the children** as well. In other words, anyone who is disqualified from bearing witness about a father is also disqualified from bearing witness about his children.


###### Sanhedrin 28a:29
[Sanhedrin 28a:29](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/28a:29)

אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: אֲחִי חֲמוֹתִי לֹא יָעִיד לִי, בֶּן אֲחִי חֲמוֹתִי לֹא יָעִיד לִי, בֶּן אֲחוֹת חֲמוֹתִי לֹא יָעִיד לִי. וּתְנָא תּוּנָא: בַּעַל אֲחוֹתוֹ, וּבַעַל אֲחוֹת אָבִיו, וּבַעַל אֲחוֹת אִמּוֹ, הֵן וּבְנֵיהֶן וְחַתְנֵיהֶן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rav Naḥman says: The brother of my mother-in-law will not testify about me; the son of the brother of my mother-in-law will not testify about me; the son of the sister of my mother-in-law will not testify about me. And the *tanna*** of the mishna also **taught** this *halakha*: **His sister’s husband, and the husband of his father’s sister, and the husband of his mother’s sister,** and his mother’s husband, and his father-in-law, and his brother-in-law, **they** themselves, **and their sons, and their sons-in-law.** This describes the same familial relationship from the perspective of the younger generation.


###### Sanhedrin 28a:30
[Sanhedrin 28a:30](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/28a:30)

אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: כִּי הֲוֵינַן בֵּי עוּלָּא, אִיבְּעִי לַן: אֲחִי חָמִיו מַהוּ? בֶּן אֲחִי חָמִיו מַהוּ? בֶּן אֲחוֹת חָמִיו מַהוּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ashi said: When we were in Ulla’s study hall, we were asked:** With regard to testifying about **the brother of** one’s **father-in-law, what is** the *halakha*? With regard to **the son of the brother of** one’s **father-in-law, what is** the *halakha*? With regard to **the son of the sister of** one’s **father-in-law, what is** the *halakha*?


###### Sanhedrin 28a:31
[Sanhedrin 28a:31](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/28a:31)

אֲמַר לַן: תְּנֵיתוּהָ, אָחִיו וַאֲחִי אָבִיו וַאֲחִי אִמּוֹ – הֵן וּבְנֵיהֶן וְחַתְנֵיהֶן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
And Ulla **said to us: You learned** the answer to this question in the mishna: **His brother, and his paternal uncle, and his maternal uncle,** and his mother’s husband, and his father-in-law, and his brother-in-law, **they** themselves, **and their sons, and their sons-in-law.** These relationships are the same as those you were asked about, from the perspective of the younger generation.


###### Sanhedrin 28a:32
[Sanhedrin 28a:32](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/28a:32)

רַב אִיקְּלַע לְמִזְבַּן

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav arrived** at a certain place **to buy**