Halakhah sa Deuteronomio 24:16: Mishneh Torah, Repentance, Shulchan Arukh, Choshen Mishpat, Mishneh Torah, Negative Mitzvot & Sefer HaChinukh

There are many verses in the Torah and in the texts of the prophets which appear to contradict this principle, and most people are stumbling thereby, and therefrom they suppose in their mind that the Holy One, blessed is He! predestines for man either to do evil or good, and that the heart of man is not his to bend it to his own will. Wherefor, behold, I am making clear a great principle, out which thou shalt know the explanation of all those verses. When an individual or a people of a state do sin, and the sinner transgressed consciously and of his own free will, as we have already made known in the preceding chapter, it is meet that retribution is visited upon him, and the Holy One, blessed is He! knoweth how to inflict the punishment. There is a category of sin for which justice demands that punishment should be visited upon the sinner in this world, on his body, or his property, or on his infant children, for the little children of man, who have not yet reached the age of intelligence nor attained the age when they are included among those who are obliged to observe the precepts, are considered man's own acquisition, even as it is written: "Every man shall be put to death for his own sin" (Deut. 24.16)—he suffers for his own sins when he reaches the age of man;¹The punishment herein spoken of is retribution by the Judge of the whole earth, and not by tribunal of man; no tribunal has the power under the laws of the Torah to inflict the punishment of death upon infant children for the crime of a parent. G. and there is a category of sin for which justice demands that punishment should be visited upon the transgressors only in the World to Come, and the sinner suffers no harm whatever in this world; and there is still another category of sin for which punishment is inflicted upon the sinner both in this world and the World to Come.¹

All those who are ineligible to testify on account of kinship,⁵⁰One who came with a lawsuit to an expert Judge (מומחה) and was aware that his fellow-litigant is related to the Judge, the law is that the latter is permitted to adjudicate the case, since the very fact that the litigant is satisfied that this Judge should try the case despite the latter’s relationship to the fellow-litigant, is tantamount to an acceptance of the Judge. Should, however, the related litigant desire to declare the Judge ineligible, he has the right to do so — ShaK, A.H.
51) A public announcement (הכרזה) is required to be made with respect to a person who Rabbinically is disqualified to act as a witness. Not so, however, in the case of a Judge — Keneseth ha-Gedolah. Ezrath Nashim requires a public announcement even in the case of a Judge. or on account of sin, are ineligible to judge.⁵²Derived from Mishna Nid. 49b: ‘Whoever is eligible to judge is eligible to give evidence, and some are eligible to give evidence and are not eligible to judge.’ If one of the Judges was found to be a kinsman or otherwise ineligible, the entire judgment is invalidated as in the case of witnesses (infra § 36, 1) — R.A.Eger. The litigants must then present their pleas again before eligible Judges and a new adjudication is required. The previous Judges, excluding the Judge who was related to the witnesses or to an otherwise ineligible person, may participate in the new adjudication — A.H. , infra §§ 33 and 34 [regarding] the detailed laws of ineligible persons with respect to testimony and the same applies to adjudication, [viz.,] that the Judges should not be related to each other nor to the witnesses.⁵³RaN to Ket. II end; RaShBA Resp. s. 790; v. infra § 33, 17 — G. Derived from Y. San. III, 10(23c); Y. Sheb. IV, 1(35b) according to the version of Alfasi and Asheri to San. III: ‘Whence is it derived that the witnesses should not be related to each other? — This follows from your own logical deduction, (viz.,) that if one of them was proven to be a Zomem (v. Deut. XIX, 19), is he put to death (by the law of retaliation) before his fellow (-witness) is (also) proven to be a Zomem? — (Certainly not.) Consequently, since the law of retaliation operates only if both witnesses are proven to be Zomemim, it follows that if both witnesses are related to each other, each kinsman-witness would be put to death through the testimony of his fellow kinsman-witness (which is impossible on the basis of the text, The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers — Deut. XXIV, 16, — which is explained anon to intimate that all relations, not only fathers and sons, are not to be put to death through the testimony of other relations. , Y. anon and cf. San. 27b-28a). (For) if you say thus (i.e., that witnesses may be related to each other, would not the result be that one kinsman-witness) is put to death on his (i.e., the other kinsman-witness) testimony? Whence is it derived that the witnesses should not be related to the Judges? — This follows from your own logical deduction, (viz.,) that if they (the witnesses who are related to the Judges) are proven to be Zomemim, would not (the result be that) they (the witnesses) are put to death through their (the Judges’) verdict (i.e., after the Judges receive the refutation of the testimony that was given by the witnesses who were related to the Judges) ? Whence is it derived that the Judges should not be related to each other? — Scripture states : Put to death on the testimony of witnesses (v. Deut. XIX, 15) ; Put to death according to the decision of Judges (v. Deut. XVII, 11) — just as witnesses must not be related to each other, so too, must the Judges not be related to each other.’ Cf. also infra § 46, 21. The Judges must not be related even to the mandatories of the litigants, provided the mandatories are interested parties in that they will have a share in anything that is ruled in favour of the litigants whom they represent — A.H.

That a relative shall not testify, as it is said, “The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers” (Deut. 24:16). By tradition, it is learnt that this text means that parents are not to be put to death on the evidence of their children, and the same principle applies to other relatives.