Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

August 13, 2017 | 讻状讗 讘讗讘 转砖注状讝

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Sanhedrin 28

More derivations of laws regarding relatives are brought as well as more detailed descriptions of relationships that are problematic. 聽General principles are also discussed – can one testify for his brother’s grandchild (1st generation to third generation)? 聽Can a 2nd generation testify for a third (a person on one’s uncle’s grandchildren). 聽Different versions from the tannaim are brought regarding the categories mentioned in the mishna – which relations include also their sons and sons in-law and which do not?

讗砖讻讞谉 讗讘讜转 诇讘谞讬诐 讜讘谞讬诐 诇讗讘讜转

搂 The Gemara resumes its discussion of the source for the disqualification of relatives from bearing witness. From the fact that the verse: 鈥淭he fathers shall not be put to death for the children鈥 (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鈥檚 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鈥 brothers.

讜讻诇 砖讻谉 讗讘讜转 诇讛讚讚讬

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.

讘谞讬诐 诇讘谞讬诐 诪谞诇谉

But from where do we derive that one brother鈥檚 children cannot bear witness about the children of the other brother?

讗诐 讻谉 诇讬讻转讜讘 拽专讗 诇讗 讬讜诪转讜 讗讘讜转 注诇 讘谉 诪讗讬 讘谞讬诐 讚讗驻讬诇讜 讘谞讬诐 诇讛讚讚讬

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 鈥渃hildren鈥 written, in the plural? It is derived from here that even children of brothers are disqualified from bearing witness about each other.

讗砖讻讞谉 讘谞讬诐 诇讛讚讚讬 讘谞讬诐 诇注诇诪讗 诪谞诇谉

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?

讗诪专 专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 住讘专讗 讛讜讗 讻讚转谞讬讗 讗讬谉 讛注讚讬诐 谞注砖讬谉 讝讜诪诪讬谉 注讚 砖讬讝讜诪讜 砖谞讬讛谉 讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讘谞讬诐 诇注诇诪讗 讻砖专讬谉 谞诪爪讗 注讚 讝讜诪诐 谞讛专讙 讘注讚讜转 讗讞讬讜

Rami bar 岣ma 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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 讜诇讬讟注诪讬讱 讛讗 讚转谞谉 砖诇砖讛 讗讞讬谉 讜讗讞讚 诪爪讟专祝 注诪讛谉 讛专讬 讗诇讜 砖诇砖 注讚讬讜转 讜讛谉 注讚讜转 讗讞转 诇讛讝诪讛

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.

谞诪爪讗 注讚 讝讜诪诐 诪砖诇诐 诪诪讜谉 讘注讚讜转 讗讞讬讜

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鈥 testimony is not disqualified.

讗诇讗 讛讝诪讛 诪注诇诪讗 拽讗转讬 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讛讝诪讛 诪注诇诪讗 拽讗转讬

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.

讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 诇讬讻转讜讘 拽专讗 讜讘谉 注诇 讗讘讜转 讗讬 谞诪讬 讛诐 注诇 讗讘讜转 诪讗讬 讜讘谞讬诐 讗驻讬诇讜 讘谞讬诐 诇注诇诪讗

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 鈥渁nd the children鈥 written in the plural? This indicates that related children are disqualified from bearing witness even about others.

讗砖讻讞谉 拽专讜讘讬 讛讗讘 拽专讜讘讬 讛讗诐 诪谞诇谉 讗诪专 拽专讗 讗讘讜转 讗讘讜转 转专讬 讝讬诪谞讬 讗诐 讗讬谞讜 注谞讬谉 诇拽专讜讘讬 讛讗讘 转谞讬讛讜 注谞讬谉 诇拽专讜讘讬 讛讗诐

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 鈥渇athers,鈥 鈥渇athers,鈥 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 鈥渇athers鈥 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.

讗砖讻讞谉 诇讞讜讘讛 诇讝讻讜转 诪谞讗 诇谉

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: 鈥淪hall not be put to death.鈥 From where do we derive that one cannot testify to the benefit of his relative?

讗诪专 拽专讗 讬讜诪转讜 讬讜诪转讜 转专讬 讝讬诪谞讬 讗诐 讗讬谞讜 注谞讬谉 诇讞讜讘讛 转谞讛讜 注谞讬谉 诇讝讻讜转

The Gemara answers: The verse states the term 鈥渟hall not be put to death,鈥 鈥渟hall not be put to death,鈥 twice. If it is not needed to teach the matter of testimony to the detriment of one鈥檚 relative, as this halakha was already derived from the verse, apply it to the matter of testimony to the benefit of one鈥檚 relative.

讗砖讻讞谉 讘讚讬谞讬 谞驻砖讜转 讘讚讬谞讬 诪诪讜谞讜转 诪谞诇谉

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?

讗诪专 拽专讗 诪砖驻讟 讗讞讚 讬讛讬讛 诇讻诐 诪砖驻讟 讛砖讜讛 诇讻诐

The Gemara answers that the verse states: 鈥淵ou shall have one manner of law鈥 (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.

讗诪专 专讘 讗讞讬 讗讘讗 诇讗 讬注讬讚 诇讬 讛讜讗 讜讘谞讜 讜讞转谞讜 讗祝 讗谞讬 诇讗 讗注讬讚 诇讜 讗谞讬 讜讘谞讬 讜讞转谞讬

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.

讜讗诪讗讬 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 砖诇讬砖讬 讘专讗砖讜谉 讜讗谞谉 砖谞讬 讘砖谞讬 转谞谉 砖谞讬 讘专讗砖讜谉 转谞谉 砖诇讬砖讬 讘专讗砖讜谉 诇讗 转谞谉

The Gemara asks: And why, for example, can Rav鈥檚 son not testify about the brother of his father鈥檚 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.

诪讗讬 讞转谞讜 讚拽转谞讬 讘诪转谞讬转讬谉 讞转谉 讘谞讜

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.

讜诇讬转谞讬 讘谉 讘谞讜

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.

诪讬诇转讗 讗讙讘 讗讜专讞讬讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讘注诇 讻讗砖转讜

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鈥檚 son and one鈥檚 son-in-law.

讜讗诇讗 讛讗 讚转谞讬 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 砖诪讜谞讛 讗讘讜转 砖讛谉 注砖专讬诐 讜讗专讘注讛 讛谞讬 转诇转讬谉 讜转专转讬谉 讛讜讬

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 岣yya 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鈥檚 grandson these are thirty-two, as the son, the son-in-law, and the grandson of each are included.

讗诇讗 诇注讜诇诐 讞转谞讜 诪诪砖 讜讗诪讗讬 拽专讬 诇讬讛 讞转谉 讘谞讜 讻讬讜谉 讚诪注诇诪讗 拽讗转讬 讻讚讜专 讗讞专 讚诪讬

The Gemara consequently rejects the explanation that the mishna is referring to the son-in-law of one鈥檚 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鈥檚 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.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 砖诇讬砖讬 讘砖谞讬 讜专讘 讗讻砖专 砖诇讬砖讬 讘砖谞讬

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.

讗诇讗 专讘 讚讗诪专 讻专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 讻砖诐 砖讗讞讬 讗讘讗 诇讗 讬注讬讚 诇讬 讛讜讗 讜讘谞讜 讜讞转谞讜 讻讱 讘谉 讗讞讬 讗讘讗 诇讗 讬注讬讚 诇讬 讛讜讗 讜讘谞讜 讜讞转谞讜

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.

讜讗讻转讬 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 砖诇讬砖讬 讘砖谞讬 讜专讘 讗讻砖专 砖诇讬砖讬 讘砖谞讬

The Gemara asks: But still, according to Rabbi Elazar, the grandson of one鈥檚 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.

专讘 住讘专 诇讬讛 讻讜讜转讬讛 讘讞讚讗 讜驻诇讬讙 注诇讬讛 讘讞讚讗

The Gemara answers: Rav holds in accordance with Rabbi Elazar鈥檚 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.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 诇讗 讬讜诪转讜 讗讘讜转 注诇 讘谞讬诐 讜讘谞讬诐 诇专讘讜转 讚讜专 讗讞专

What is the reason for the opinion of Rav? It is as the verse states: 鈥淭he fathers shall not be put to death for the children, and the children shall not be put to death for the fathers.鈥 The phrase 鈥渇or the children, and the children鈥 is interpreted to include another generation, the grandchildren of one鈥檚 brother; they are also disqualified.

讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 注诇 讘谞讬诐 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 驻住讜诇讬 讚讗讘讜转 砖讚讬 讗讘谞讬诐

And Rabbi Elazar derives his opinion from the fact that the Merciful One states: 鈥淔or the children,鈥 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.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗讞讬 讞诪讜转讬 诇讗 讬注讬讚 诇讬 讘谉 讗讞讬 讞诪讜转讬 诇讗 讬注讬讚 诇讬 讘谉 讗讞讜转 讞诪讜转讬 诇讗 讬注讬讚 诇讬 讜转谞讗 转讜谞讗 讘注诇 讗讞讜转讜 讜讘注诇 讗讞讜转 讗讘讬讜 讜讘注诇 讗讞讜转 讗诪讜 讛谉 讜讘谞讬讛谉 讜讞转谞讬讛谉

Rav Na岣an 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鈥檚 husband, and the husband of his father鈥檚 sister, and the husband of his mother鈥檚 sister, and his mother鈥檚 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.

讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讻讬 讛讜讬谞谉 讘讬 注讜诇讗 讗讬讘注讬 诇谉 讗讞讬 讞诪讬讜 诪讛讜 讘谉 讗讞讬 讞诪讬讜 诪讛讜 讘谉 讗讞讜转 讞诪讬讜 诪讛讜

Rav Ashi said: When we were in Ulla鈥檚 study hall, we were asked: With regard to testifying about the brother of one鈥檚 father-in-law, what is the halakha? With regard to the son of the brother of one鈥檚 father-in-law, what is the halakha? With regard to the son of the sister of one鈥檚 father-in-law, what is the halakha?

讗诪专 诇谉 转谞讬转讜讛 讗讞讬讜 讜讗讞讬 讗讘讬讜 讜讗讞讬 讗诪讜 讛谉 讜讘谞讬讛谉 讜讞转谞讬讛谉

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鈥檚 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.

专讘 讗讬拽诇注 诇诪讝讘谉

Rav arrived at a certain place to buy

讙讜讬诇讬 讘注讜 诪讬谞讬讛 诪讛讜 砖讬注讬讚 讗讚诐 讘讗砖转 讞讜专讙讜

scrolls of parchment. They asked of him there: What is the halakha as to whether a man can testify with regard to the wife of his stepson?

讘住讜专讗 讗诪专讬 讘注诇 讻讗砖转讜

In Sura they say that Rav gave the following answer: A husband is considered like his wife. Since he is married to the son鈥檚 mother, the son鈥檚 wife is considered like his daughter-in-law.

讘驻讜诪讘讚讬转讗 讗诪专讬 讗砖讛 讻讘注诇讛 讚讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诪谞讬讬谉 砖讛讗砖讛 讻讘注诇讛 讚讻转讬讘 注专讜转 讗讞讬 讗讘讬讱 诇讗 转讙诇讛 讗诇 讗砖转讜 诇讗 转拽专讘 讚讚转讱 讛讬讗 讜讛诇讗 讗砖转 讚讜讚讜 讛讬讗 诪讻诇诇 讚讗砖讛 讻讘注诇讛

In Pumbedita they say a different version of Rav鈥檚 answer: A wife is considered like her husband. Therefore, the wife of his stepson is considered like his stepson, and he cannot testify about her. As Rav Huna says that Rav Na岣an says: From where is it derived that a wife is considered like her husband? As it is written: 鈥淵ou shall not uncover the nakedness of your father鈥檚 brother; you shall not approach his wife: She is your aunt鈥 (Leviticus 18:14). Isn鈥檛 she the wife of his uncle, and not his aunt, i.e., his father鈥檚 sister? It can therefore be concluded, by inference, that a wife is considered like her husband.

讜讘注诇 讗诪讜 讛讜讗 讜讘谞讜 讜讞转谞讜 讘谞讜 讛讬讬谞讜 讗讞讬讜

搂 The mishna teaches that among the relatives disqualified from testifying are his mother鈥檚 husband, he, i.e., the mother鈥檚 husband himself, and his son, and his son-in-law. The Gemara challenges: The son of his mother鈥檚 husband is the same as his brother, i.e., his half brother, and the mishna already stated that his brother is disqualified.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 诇讗 谞爪专讻讛 讗诇讗 诇讗讞讬 讛讗讞

Rabbi Yirmeya said: Mentioning this case is necessary only for the half brother of the half brother, i.e., the son of his stepfather from another woman. Although they are not biologically related, they are considered relatives.

专讘 讞住讚讗 讗讻砖专 讘讗讞讬 讛讗讞 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 诇讗 砖诪讬注 诇讱 讛讗 讚专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讗诪专 诇讛讜 诇讗 砖诪讬注 诇讬 讻诇讜诪专 诇讗 住讘讬专讗 诇讬

Rav 岣sda deemed the testimony of the half brother of the half brother fit. The other Sages said to him: Did you not hear this statement of Rabbi Yirmeya, that the half brother of the half brother is disqualified? Rav 岣sda said to them: I did not hear this, as if to say: I do not hold in accordance with this opinion.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讛讬讬谞讜 讗讞讬讜 转谞讗 讗讞讬讜 诪谉 讛讗讘 讜拽转谞讬 讗讞讬讜 诪谉 讛讗诐

The Gemara asks: If so, the question asked above recurs: The son of his mother鈥檚 father is the same as his brother. The Gemara answers: The mishna taught the case of a paternal half brother, and it also teaches the case of a maternal half brother.

讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讗讘讬 讞转谉 讜讗讘讬 讻诇讛 诪注讬讚讬谉 讝讛 注诇 讝讛 讜诇讗 讚诪讜 诇讛讚讚讬 讗诇讗 讻讬 讗讻诇讗 诇讚谞讗

Rav 岣sda says: The father of the groom and the father of the bride can testify about each other, and this is because they are considered to each other only like a lid on a barrel, which is not part of the barrel, but merely rests on top of it.

讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 诪注讬讚 讗讚诐 诇讗砖转讜 讗专讜住讛 讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 诇讗 讗诪专谉 讗诇讗 诇讗驻讜拽讬 诪讬谞讛 讗讘诇 诇注讬讜诇讬 诇讛 诇讗 诪讛讬诪谉

Rabba bar bar 岣na says: A man can testify about his betrothed wife; they are considered related only after marriage. Ravina says: We said this halakha only for testimony that removes money from her possession; but for testimony that awards her money, his testimony is not deemed credible, as he will ultimately marry her and benefit from the money.

讜诇讗 讛讬讗 诇讗 砖谞讗 诇讗驻讜拽讬 讜诇讗 砖谞讗 诇注讬讜诇讬 诇讗 诪讛讬诪谉

The Gemara rejects this opinion: But that is not so. There is no difference whether the testimony removes money from her possession, and there is no difference whether it awards her money. In both cases, his testimony is not deemed credible.

诪讗讬 讚注转讬讱 讻讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗诪讬 诪砖诪讬讛 讚注讜诇讗 讗砖转讜 讗专讜住讛 诇讗 讗讜谞谉 讜诇讗 诪讟诪讗 诇讛 讜讻谉 讛讬讗 诇讗 讗讜谞谞转 讜诇讗 诪讟诪讗讛 诇讜 诪转讛 讗讬谞讜 讬讜专砖讛 诪转 讛讜讗 讙讜讘讛 讻转讜讘转讛

The Gemara explains: What is your thinking that you deem a man fit to bear witness concerning his betrothed wife? It is as Rabbi 岣yya bar Ami said in the name of Ulla: One does not enter acute mourning on the day of the death of his betrothed wife, nor may he become ritually impure to bury her if he is a priest. Similarly, she does not enter acute mourning for him and is not obligated to become ritually impure to bury him. If she dies, he does not inherit her property. If he dies, she collects payment of her marriage contract if he wrote it at the time of the betrothal, as it is treated like any other monetary document. Evidently, a betrothed woman is not considered related to her husband.

讛转诐 讘砖讗专讜 转诇讛 专讞诪谞讗 讗讻转讬 诇讗讜 砖讗专讜 讛讬讗 讛讻讗 诪砖讜诐 讗讬拽专讜讘讬 讚注转讗 讛讜讗 讜讛讗 讗讬拽专讘讗 讚注转讬讛 诇讙讘讛

The Gemara comments: That halakha does not serve as a proof for the halakha of testimony, as there, with regard to ritual impurity and the like, the Merciful One renders it dependent on the question of whether the woman is 鈥渉is kin鈥 (Leviticus 21:2), and a betrothed woman is not yet his kin, as they are not yet married. But here, with regard to testimony, it is due to a sense of affinity that he is disqualified, and one feels a sense of affinity toward his betrothed.

讞讜专讙讜 诇讘讚讜 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讞讜专讙讜 诇讘讚讜 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讙讬住讜 讜转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 讙讬住讜 诇讘讚讜 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讞讜专讙讜

搂 The mishna teaches that his stepson alone is disqualified from bearing witness about him, but not his stepson鈥檚 sons or sons-in-law. The Sages taught in a baraita: His stepson alone is disqualified. Rabbi Yosei says: His brother-in-law. And it is taught in another baraita: His brother-in-law alone is disqualified. Rabbi Yehuda says: His stepson.

诪讗讬 拽讗诪专 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讞讜专讙讜 诇讘讚讜 讜讛讜讗 讛讚讬谉 诇讙讬住讜 讜讗转讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诇诪讬诪专 讙讬住讜 诇讘讚讜 讜讛讜讗 讛讚讬谉 诇讞讜专讙讜 讗诇讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚拽转谞讬 讙讬住讜 讛讜讗 讜讘谞讜 讜讞转谞讜 诪谞讬 诇讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜诇讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬

The Gemara asks: What is the baraita saying? If we say that this is what it is saying: His stepson alone is disqualified, and the same is true with regard to his brother-in-law, i.e., a brother-in-law alone is disqualified but not a brother-in-law鈥檚 son or son-in-law; and Rabbi Yosei comes to say that his brother-in-law alone is disqualified, and the same is true with regard to his stepson; that interpretation is difficult. If so, whose opinion is expressed in the mishna, which teaches that his brother-in-law is disqualified, and this disqualification applies to he himself, and his son, and his son-in-law? It is neither the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda nor the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, as they both agree that the son and son-in-law of one鈥檚 brother-in-law are not disqualified.

讜讗诇讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讞讜专讙讜 诇讘讚讜 讗讘诇 讙讬住讜 讛讜讗 讜讘谞讜 讜讞转谞讜 讜讗转讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诇诪讬诪专 讙讬住讜 诇讘讚讜 讗讘诇 讞讜专讙讜 讛讜讗 讜讘谞讜 讜讞转谞讜

Rather, this is what the baraita is saying: His stepson alone is disqualified, but as for his brother-in-law, he himself, and his son, and his son-in-law are disqualified. And Rabbi Yosei comes to disagree and say that his brother-in-law alone is disqualified, but as for his stepson, he himself, and his son, and his son-in-law are disqualified. Accordingly, the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda.

讜讗诇讗 讛讗 讚转谞讬 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 砖诪讜谞讛 讗讘讜转 砖讛谉 注砖专讬诐 讜讗专讘注讛 讻诪讗谉 诇讗 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讜诇讗 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

The Gemara asks: But then, in accordance with whose opinion is the baraita that Rabbi 岣yya teaches, that eight fathers, which are the eight principal relatives mentioned in the mishna, are disqualified, which are twenty-four including the son and son-in-law of each? It is neither in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei nor in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda.

讗诇讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讞讜专讙讜 诇讘讚讜 讗讘诇 讙讬住讜 讛讜讗 讜讘谞讜 讜讞转谞讜 讜讗转讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诇诪讬诪专 讙讬住讜 诇讘讚讜 讜讻诇 砖讻谉 讞讜专讙讜 讜诪转谞讬转讬谉 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘专讬讬转讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬

Rather, the above interpretation should be rejected, and this is what the baraita is saying: His stepson alone is disqualified, but as for his brother-in-law, he himself, and his son, and his son-in-law are disqualified. And Rabbi Yosei comes to say that his brother-in-law alone is disqualified, excluding his son and son-in-law, and all the more so his stepson. And accordingly, the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, and the baraita that Rabbi 岣yya taught is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬

Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei.

讛讛讬讗 诪转谞转讗 讚讛讜讬 讞转讬诪讬 注诇讛 转专讬 讙讬住讬 住讘专 专讘 讬讜住祝 诇讗讻砖讜专讛 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬

The Gemara relates: There was a certain deed of gift on which two brothers-in-law were signed. Rav Yosef thought to deem it valid, as Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei. Rav Yosef assumed that Shmuel was referring to Rabbi Yosei鈥檚 opinion as cited in the mishna, that only relatives who are fit to inherit are disqualified, and one does not inherit from his brother-in-law.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诪诪讗讬 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讚诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚诪讻砖专 讘讙讬住讜 讚讬诇诪讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讚讘专讬讬转讗 讚驻住讬诇 讘讙讬住讜

Abaye said to him: From where do you conclude that Shmuel was referring to Rabbi Yosei as cited in the mishna, who deems one鈥檚 brother-in-law fit to bear witness with or about him? Perhaps he was referring to Rabbi Yosei as cited in the baraita, who deems one鈥檚 brother-in-law, though not the latter鈥檚 son and son-in-law, disqualified?

诇讗 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讚讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讻讙讜谉 讗谞讗 讜驻谞讞住 讚讛讜讬谞谉 讗讞讬 讜讙讬住讬 讗讘诇 讙讬住讬 讚注诇诪讗 砖驻讬专 讚诪讬

Rav Yosef answered: Do not let it enter your mind that Shmuel was referring to the opinion of Rabbi Yosei as cited in the baraita; as Shmuel said: For example, my brother Pine岣s and I are disqualified from bearing witness about one another. Apparently, he meant to say: We are disqualified because we are both brothers and brothers-in-law, as we married two sisters. But by inference, other brothers-in-law may well testify about each other.

讜讚讬诇诪讗 讻讙讜谉 讗谞讗 讜驻谞讞住 诪砖讜诐 讚讙讬住讜 拽讗诪专

Abaye raised an objection: But perhaps Shmuel said: For example, Pine岣s and I are disqualified, only because Pine岣s was his brother-in-law; he did not mean to say that they were disqualified only because they were brothers.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讝讬诇 拽谞讬讛 讘注讚讬 诪住讬专讛 讻专讘讬 讗诇注讝专

Due to Abaye鈥檚 objection, Rav Yosef said to the one holding the deed of gift: Since the witnesses signed on the document are disqualified from bearing witness together, go and acquire the gift by means of the witnesses who observed the transmission of the deed to you, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, who maintains that the witnesses who effect the transaction are not those who signed the deed but rather those who observed its transmission. A legal document is signed by witnesses merely to enhance its authority, not to effect the transaction.

讜讛讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘诪讝讜讬祝 诪转讜讻讜 砖讛讜讗 驻住讜诇 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讝讬诇 诇讗 砖讘拽讬 诇讬 讚讗讜转讘讬谞讬讛 诇讱

Abaye raised an objection: But doesn鈥檛 Rabbi Abba say that Rabbi Elazar concedes with regard to a document whose falsification is inherent in it, that the deed is not valid despite the fact that it was properly transferred? In other words, although the signatures on a legal document are unnecessary insofar as effecting the transaction is concerned, a document that includes invalid signatures is not valid, and this is in order to prevent others from relying upon these witnesses. Rav Yosef said to the one holding the deed of gift: Go away; the rabbis do not let me give you the gift.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讻讜壮 讗诪专 专讘讬 转谞讞讜诐 讗诪专 专讘讬 讟讘诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讘专讜谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 专讘讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗讬谉 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讻谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗讬谉 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

搂 The mishna teaches that Rabbi Yehuda says that if the witness married the daughter of one of the litigants he is disqualified even if the daughter died, provided that he has children from her. Rabbi Tan岣m says that Rabbi Tavla says that Rabbi Beruna says that Rav says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. Rava says that Rav Na岣an says: The halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. And likewise Rabba bar bar 岣na says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: The halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda.

讗讬讻讗 讚诪转谞讬 诇讛 诇讛讗 讚专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗讛讗 讗转 讝讜 讚专砖 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 壮讜讘讗转 讗诇 讛讻讛谞讬诐 讛诇讜讬诐 讜讗诇 讛砖驻讟 讗砖专 讬讛讬讛 讘讬诪讬诐 讛讛诐壮 讜讻讬 转注诇讛 注诇 讚注转讱 砖讗讚诐 讛讜诇讱 讗爪诇 砖讜驻讟 砖诇讗 讛讬讛 讘讬诪讬讜 讗诇讗 讝讛 砖讛讬讛 拽专讜讘 讜谞转专讞拽

There are those who teach this ruling of Rabba bar bar 岣na with regard to this baraita: Rabbi Yosei HaGelili interpreted this verse: 鈥淎nd you shall come to the priests the Levites, and to the judge who will be in those days鈥 (Deuteronomy 17:9). Rabbi Yosei HaGelili asks: What is the meaning of the phrase 鈥渨ho will be in those days鈥? But will it enter your mind that a person would go to a judge that was not in his days? Rather, this is referring to one who was a relative of one of the litigants due to marriage, and then became not related. The litigant can therefore come before him only in those days that they are not related, and not while they are still related.

讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬

It is with regard to this baraita that Rabba bar bar 岣na says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili. The ruling is the same as in Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 aforementioned statement, i.e., a relative who became unrelated is fit to bear witness or serve as a judge, but it was stated in a different context.

讘谞讬 讞诪讜讛 讚诪专 注讜拽讘讗

The Gemara relates: The sons of the father-in-law of Mar Ukva

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Sanhedrin 28

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Sanhedrin 28

讗砖讻讞谉 讗讘讜转 诇讘谞讬诐 讜讘谞讬诐 诇讗讘讜转

搂 The Gemara resumes its discussion of the source for the disqualification of relatives from bearing witness. From the fact that the verse: 鈥淭he fathers shall not be put to death for the children鈥 (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鈥檚 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鈥 brothers.

讜讻诇 砖讻谉 讗讘讜转 诇讛讚讚讬

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.

讘谞讬诐 诇讘谞讬诐 诪谞诇谉

But from where do we derive that one brother鈥檚 children cannot bear witness about the children of the other brother?

讗诐 讻谉 诇讬讻转讜讘 拽专讗 诇讗 讬讜诪转讜 讗讘讜转 注诇 讘谉 诪讗讬 讘谞讬诐 讚讗驻讬诇讜 讘谞讬诐 诇讛讚讚讬

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 鈥渃hildren鈥 written, in the plural? It is derived from here that even children of brothers are disqualified from bearing witness about each other.

讗砖讻讞谉 讘谞讬诐 诇讛讚讚讬 讘谞讬诐 诇注诇诪讗 诪谞诇谉

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?

讗诪专 专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 住讘专讗 讛讜讗 讻讚转谞讬讗 讗讬谉 讛注讚讬诐 谞注砖讬谉 讝讜诪诪讬谉 注讚 砖讬讝讜诪讜 砖谞讬讛谉 讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讘谞讬诐 诇注诇诪讗 讻砖专讬谉 谞诪爪讗 注讚 讝讜诪诐 谞讛专讙 讘注讚讜转 讗讞讬讜

Rami bar 岣ma 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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 讜诇讬讟注诪讬讱 讛讗 讚转谞谉 砖诇砖讛 讗讞讬谉 讜讗讞讚 诪爪讟专祝 注诪讛谉 讛专讬 讗诇讜 砖诇砖 注讚讬讜转 讜讛谉 注讚讜转 讗讞转 诇讛讝诪讛

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.

谞诪爪讗 注讚 讝讜诪诐 诪砖诇诐 诪诪讜谉 讘注讚讜转 讗讞讬讜

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鈥 testimony is not disqualified.

讗诇讗 讛讝诪讛 诪注诇诪讗 拽讗转讬 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讛讝诪讛 诪注诇诪讗 拽讗转讬

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.

讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 诇讬讻转讜讘 拽专讗 讜讘谉 注诇 讗讘讜转 讗讬 谞诪讬 讛诐 注诇 讗讘讜转 诪讗讬 讜讘谞讬诐 讗驻讬诇讜 讘谞讬诐 诇注诇诪讗

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 鈥渁nd the children鈥 written in the plural? This indicates that related children are disqualified from bearing witness even about others.

讗砖讻讞谉 拽专讜讘讬 讛讗讘 拽专讜讘讬 讛讗诐 诪谞诇谉 讗诪专 拽专讗 讗讘讜转 讗讘讜转 转专讬 讝讬诪谞讬 讗诐 讗讬谞讜 注谞讬谉 诇拽专讜讘讬 讛讗讘 转谞讬讛讜 注谞讬谉 诇拽专讜讘讬 讛讗诐

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 鈥渇athers,鈥 鈥渇athers,鈥 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 鈥渇athers鈥 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.

讗砖讻讞谉 诇讞讜讘讛 诇讝讻讜转 诪谞讗 诇谉

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: 鈥淪hall not be put to death.鈥 From where do we derive that one cannot testify to the benefit of his relative?

讗诪专 拽专讗 讬讜诪转讜 讬讜诪转讜 转专讬 讝讬诪谞讬 讗诐 讗讬谞讜 注谞讬谉 诇讞讜讘讛 转谞讛讜 注谞讬谉 诇讝讻讜转

The Gemara answers: The verse states the term 鈥渟hall not be put to death,鈥 鈥渟hall not be put to death,鈥 twice. If it is not needed to teach the matter of testimony to the detriment of one鈥檚 relative, as this halakha was already derived from the verse, apply it to the matter of testimony to the benefit of one鈥檚 relative.

讗砖讻讞谉 讘讚讬谞讬 谞驻砖讜转 讘讚讬谞讬 诪诪讜谞讜转 诪谞诇谉

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?

讗诪专 拽专讗 诪砖驻讟 讗讞讚 讬讛讬讛 诇讻诐 诪砖驻讟 讛砖讜讛 诇讻诐

The Gemara answers that the verse states: 鈥淵ou shall have one manner of law鈥 (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.

讗诪专 专讘 讗讞讬 讗讘讗 诇讗 讬注讬讚 诇讬 讛讜讗 讜讘谞讜 讜讞转谞讜 讗祝 讗谞讬 诇讗 讗注讬讚 诇讜 讗谞讬 讜讘谞讬 讜讞转谞讬

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.

讜讗诪讗讬 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 砖诇讬砖讬 讘专讗砖讜谉 讜讗谞谉 砖谞讬 讘砖谞讬 转谞谉 砖谞讬 讘专讗砖讜谉 转谞谉 砖诇讬砖讬 讘专讗砖讜谉 诇讗 转谞谉

The Gemara asks: And why, for example, can Rav鈥檚 son not testify about the brother of his father鈥檚 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.

诪讗讬 讞转谞讜 讚拽转谞讬 讘诪转谞讬转讬谉 讞转谉 讘谞讜

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.

讜诇讬转谞讬 讘谉 讘谞讜

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.

诪讬诇转讗 讗讙讘 讗讜专讞讬讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讘注诇 讻讗砖转讜

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鈥檚 son and one鈥檚 son-in-law.

讜讗诇讗 讛讗 讚转谞讬 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 砖诪讜谞讛 讗讘讜转 砖讛谉 注砖专讬诐 讜讗专讘注讛 讛谞讬 转诇转讬谉 讜转专转讬谉 讛讜讬

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 岣yya 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鈥檚 grandson these are thirty-two, as the son, the son-in-law, and the grandson of each are included.

讗诇讗 诇注讜诇诐 讞转谞讜 诪诪砖 讜讗诪讗讬 拽专讬 诇讬讛 讞转谉 讘谞讜 讻讬讜谉 讚诪注诇诪讗 拽讗转讬 讻讚讜专 讗讞专 讚诪讬

The Gemara consequently rejects the explanation that the mishna is referring to the son-in-law of one鈥檚 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鈥檚 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.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 砖诇讬砖讬 讘砖谞讬 讜专讘 讗讻砖专 砖诇讬砖讬 讘砖谞讬

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.

讗诇讗 专讘 讚讗诪专 讻专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 讻砖诐 砖讗讞讬 讗讘讗 诇讗 讬注讬讚 诇讬 讛讜讗 讜讘谞讜 讜讞转谞讜 讻讱 讘谉 讗讞讬 讗讘讗 诇讗 讬注讬讚 诇讬 讛讜讗 讜讘谞讜 讜讞转谞讜

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.

讜讗讻转讬 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 砖诇讬砖讬 讘砖谞讬 讜专讘 讗讻砖专 砖诇讬砖讬 讘砖谞讬

The Gemara asks: But still, according to Rabbi Elazar, the grandson of one鈥檚 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.

专讘 住讘专 诇讬讛 讻讜讜转讬讛 讘讞讚讗 讜驻诇讬讙 注诇讬讛 讘讞讚讗

The Gemara answers: Rav holds in accordance with Rabbi Elazar鈥檚 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.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 诇讗 讬讜诪转讜 讗讘讜转 注诇 讘谞讬诐 讜讘谞讬诐 诇专讘讜转 讚讜专 讗讞专

What is the reason for the opinion of Rav? It is as the verse states: 鈥淭he fathers shall not be put to death for the children, and the children shall not be put to death for the fathers.鈥 The phrase 鈥渇or the children, and the children鈥 is interpreted to include another generation, the grandchildren of one鈥檚 brother; they are also disqualified.

讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 注诇 讘谞讬诐 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 驻住讜诇讬 讚讗讘讜转 砖讚讬 讗讘谞讬诐

And Rabbi Elazar derives his opinion from the fact that the Merciful One states: 鈥淔or the children,鈥 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.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗讞讬 讞诪讜转讬 诇讗 讬注讬讚 诇讬 讘谉 讗讞讬 讞诪讜转讬 诇讗 讬注讬讚 诇讬 讘谉 讗讞讜转 讞诪讜转讬 诇讗 讬注讬讚 诇讬 讜转谞讗 转讜谞讗 讘注诇 讗讞讜转讜 讜讘注诇 讗讞讜转 讗讘讬讜 讜讘注诇 讗讞讜转 讗诪讜 讛谉 讜讘谞讬讛谉 讜讞转谞讬讛谉

Rav Na岣an 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鈥檚 husband, and the husband of his father鈥檚 sister, and the husband of his mother鈥檚 sister, and his mother鈥檚 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.

讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讻讬 讛讜讬谞谉 讘讬 注讜诇讗 讗讬讘注讬 诇谉 讗讞讬 讞诪讬讜 诪讛讜 讘谉 讗讞讬 讞诪讬讜 诪讛讜 讘谉 讗讞讜转 讞诪讬讜 诪讛讜

Rav Ashi said: When we were in Ulla鈥檚 study hall, we were asked: With regard to testifying about the brother of one鈥檚 father-in-law, what is the halakha? With regard to the son of the brother of one鈥檚 father-in-law, what is the halakha? With regard to the son of the sister of one鈥檚 father-in-law, what is the halakha?

讗诪专 诇谉 转谞讬转讜讛 讗讞讬讜 讜讗讞讬 讗讘讬讜 讜讗讞讬 讗诪讜 讛谉 讜讘谞讬讛谉 讜讞转谞讬讛谉

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鈥檚 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.

专讘 讗讬拽诇注 诇诪讝讘谉

Rav arrived at a certain place to buy

讙讜讬诇讬 讘注讜 诪讬谞讬讛 诪讛讜 砖讬注讬讚 讗讚诐 讘讗砖转 讞讜专讙讜

scrolls of parchment. They asked of him there: What is the halakha as to whether a man can testify with regard to the wife of his stepson?

讘住讜专讗 讗诪专讬 讘注诇 讻讗砖转讜

In Sura they say that Rav gave the following answer: A husband is considered like his wife. Since he is married to the son鈥檚 mother, the son鈥檚 wife is considered like his daughter-in-law.

讘驻讜诪讘讚讬转讗 讗诪专讬 讗砖讛 讻讘注诇讛 讚讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诪谞讬讬谉 砖讛讗砖讛 讻讘注诇讛 讚讻转讬讘 注专讜转 讗讞讬 讗讘讬讱 诇讗 转讙诇讛 讗诇 讗砖转讜 诇讗 转拽专讘 讚讚转讱 讛讬讗 讜讛诇讗 讗砖转 讚讜讚讜 讛讬讗 诪讻诇诇 讚讗砖讛 讻讘注诇讛

In Pumbedita they say a different version of Rav鈥檚 answer: A wife is considered like her husband. Therefore, the wife of his stepson is considered like his stepson, and he cannot testify about her. As Rav Huna says that Rav Na岣an says: From where is it derived that a wife is considered like her husband? As it is written: 鈥淵ou shall not uncover the nakedness of your father鈥檚 brother; you shall not approach his wife: She is your aunt鈥 (Leviticus 18:14). Isn鈥檛 she the wife of his uncle, and not his aunt, i.e., his father鈥檚 sister? It can therefore be concluded, by inference, that a wife is considered like her husband.

讜讘注诇 讗诪讜 讛讜讗 讜讘谞讜 讜讞转谞讜 讘谞讜 讛讬讬谞讜 讗讞讬讜

搂 The mishna teaches that among the relatives disqualified from testifying are his mother鈥檚 husband, he, i.e., the mother鈥檚 husband himself, and his son, and his son-in-law. The Gemara challenges: The son of his mother鈥檚 husband is the same as his brother, i.e., his half brother, and the mishna already stated that his brother is disqualified.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 诇讗 谞爪专讻讛 讗诇讗 诇讗讞讬 讛讗讞

Rabbi Yirmeya said: Mentioning this case is necessary only for the half brother of the half brother, i.e., the son of his stepfather from another woman. Although they are not biologically related, they are considered relatives.

专讘 讞住讚讗 讗讻砖专 讘讗讞讬 讛讗讞 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 诇讗 砖诪讬注 诇讱 讛讗 讚专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讗诪专 诇讛讜 诇讗 砖诪讬注 诇讬 讻诇讜诪专 诇讗 住讘讬专讗 诇讬

Rav 岣sda deemed the testimony of the half brother of the half brother fit. The other Sages said to him: Did you not hear this statement of Rabbi Yirmeya, that the half brother of the half brother is disqualified? Rav 岣sda said to them: I did not hear this, as if to say: I do not hold in accordance with this opinion.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讛讬讬谞讜 讗讞讬讜 转谞讗 讗讞讬讜 诪谉 讛讗讘 讜拽转谞讬 讗讞讬讜 诪谉 讛讗诐

The Gemara asks: If so, the question asked above recurs: The son of his mother鈥檚 father is the same as his brother. The Gemara answers: The mishna taught the case of a paternal half brother, and it also teaches the case of a maternal half brother.

讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讗讘讬 讞转谉 讜讗讘讬 讻诇讛 诪注讬讚讬谉 讝讛 注诇 讝讛 讜诇讗 讚诪讜 诇讛讚讚讬 讗诇讗 讻讬 讗讻诇讗 诇讚谞讗

Rav 岣sda says: The father of the groom and the father of the bride can testify about each other, and this is because they are considered to each other only like a lid on a barrel, which is not part of the barrel, but merely rests on top of it.

讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 诪注讬讚 讗讚诐 诇讗砖转讜 讗专讜住讛 讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 诇讗 讗诪专谉 讗诇讗 诇讗驻讜拽讬 诪讬谞讛 讗讘诇 诇注讬讜诇讬 诇讛 诇讗 诪讛讬诪谉

Rabba bar bar 岣na says: A man can testify about his betrothed wife; they are considered related only after marriage. Ravina says: We said this halakha only for testimony that removes money from her possession; but for testimony that awards her money, his testimony is not deemed credible, as he will ultimately marry her and benefit from the money.

讜诇讗 讛讬讗 诇讗 砖谞讗 诇讗驻讜拽讬 讜诇讗 砖谞讗 诇注讬讜诇讬 诇讗 诪讛讬诪谉

The Gemara rejects this opinion: But that is not so. There is no difference whether the testimony removes money from her possession, and there is no difference whether it awards her money. In both cases, his testimony is not deemed credible.

诪讗讬 讚注转讬讱 讻讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗诪讬 诪砖诪讬讛 讚注讜诇讗 讗砖转讜 讗专讜住讛 诇讗 讗讜谞谉 讜诇讗 诪讟诪讗 诇讛 讜讻谉 讛讬讗 诇讗 讗讜谞谞转 讜诇讗 诪讟诪讗讛 诇讜 诪转讛 讗讬谞讜 讬讜专砖讛 诪转 讛讜讗 讙讜讘讛 讻转讜讘转讛

The Gemara explains: What is your thinking that you deem a man fit to bear witness concerning his betrothed wife? It is as Rabbi 岣yya bar Ami said in the name of Ulla: One does not enter acute mourning on the day of the death of his betrothed wife, nor may he become ritually impure to bury her if he is a priest. Similarly, she does not enter acute mourning for him and is not obligated to become ritually impure to bury him. If she dies, he does not inherit her property. If he dies, she collects payment of her marriage contract if he wrote it at the time of the betrothal, as it is treated like any other monetary document. Evidently, a betrothed woman is not considered related to her husband.

讛转诐 讘砖讗专讜 转诇讛 专讞诪谞讗 讗讻转讬 诇讗讜 砖讗专讜 讛讬讗 讛讻讗 诪砖讜诐 讗讬拽专讜讘讬 讚注转讗 讛讜讗 讜讛讗 讗讬拽专讘讗 讚注转讬讛 诇讙讘讛

The Gemara comments: That halakha does not serve as a proof for the halakha of testimony, as there, with regard to ritual impurity and the like, the Merciful One renders it dependent on the question of whether the woman is 鈥渉is kin鈥 (Leviticus 21:2), and a betrothed woman is not yet his kin, as they are not yet married. But here, with regard to testimony, it is due to a sense of affinity that he is disqualified, and one feels a sense of affinity toward his betrothed.

讞讜专讙讜 诇讘讚讜 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讞讜专讙讜 诇讘讚讜 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讙讬住讜 讜转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 讙讬住讜 诇讘讚讜 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讞讜专讙讜

搂 The mishna teaches that his stepson alone is disqualified from bearing witness about him, but not his stepson鈥檚 sons or sons-in-law. The Sages taught in a baraita: His stepson alone is disqualified. Rabbi Yosei says: His brother-in-law. And it is taught in another baraita: His brother-in-law alone is disqualified. Rabbi Yehuda says: His stepson.

诪讗讬 拽讗诪专 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讞讜专讙讜 诇讘讚讜 讜讛讜讗 讛讚讬谉 诇讙讬住讜 讜讗转讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诇诪讬诪专 讙讬住讜 诇讘讚讜 讜讛讜讗 讛讚讬谉 诇讞讜专讙讜 讗诇讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚拽转谞讬 讙讬住讜 讛讜讗 讜讘谞讜 讜讞转谞讜 诪谞讬 诇讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜诇讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬

The Gemara asks: What is the baraita saying? If we say that this is what it is saying: His stepson alone is disqualified, and the same is true with regard to his brother-in-law, i.e., a brother-in-law alone is disqualified but not a brother-in-law鈥檚 son or son-in-law; and Rabbi Yosei comes to say that his brother-in-law alone is disqualified, and the same is true with regard to his stepson; that interpretation is difficult. If so, whose opinion is expressed in the mishna, which teaches that his brother-in-law is disqualified, and this disqualification applies to he himself, and his son, and his son-in-law? It is neither the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda nor the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, as they both agree that the son and son-in-law of one鈥檚 brother-in-law are not disqualified.

讜讗诇讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讞讜专讙讜 诇讘讚讜 讗讘诇 讙讬住讜 讛讜讗 讜讘谞讜 讜讞转谞讜 讜讗转讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诇诪讬诪专 讙讬住讜 诇讘讚讜 讗讘诇 讞讜专讙讜 讛讜讗 讜讘谞讜 讜讞转谞讜

Rather, this is what the baraita is saying: His stepson alone is disqualified, but as for his brother-in-law, he himself, and his son, and his son-in-law are disqualified. And Rabbi Yosei comes to disagree and say that his brother-in-law alone is disqualified, but as for his stepson, he himself, and his son, and his son-in-law are disqualified. Accordingly, the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda.

讜讗诇讗 讛讗 讚转谞讬 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 砖诪讜谞讛 讗讘讜转 砖讛谉 注砖专讬诐 讜讗专讘注讛 讻诪讗谉 诇讗 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讜诇讗 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

The Gemara asks: But then, in accordance with whose opinion is the baraita that Rabbi 岣yya teaches, that eight fathers, which are the eight principal relatives mentioned in the mishna, are disqualified, which are twenty-four including the son and son-in-law of each? It is neither in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei nor in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda.

讗诇讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讞讜专讙讜 诇讘讚讜 讗讘诇 讙讬住讜 讛讜讗 讜讘谞讜 讜讞转谞讜 讜讗转讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诇诪讬诪专 讙讬住讜 诇讘讚讜 讜讻诇 砖讻谉 讞讜专讙讜 讜诪转谞讬转讬谉 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘专讬讬转讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬

Rather, the above interpretation should be rejected, and this is what the baraita is saying: His stepson alone is disqualified, but as for his brother-in-law, he himself, and his son, and his son-in-law are disqualified. And Rabbi Yosei comes to say that his brother-in-law alone is disqualified, excluding his son and son-in-law, and all the more so his stepson. And accordingly, the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, and the baraita that Rabbi 岣yya taught is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬

Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei.

讛讛讬讗 诪转谞转讗 讚讛讜讬 讞转讬诪讬 注诇讛 转专讬 讙讬住讬 住讘专 专讘 讬讜住祝 诇讗讻砖讜专讛 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬

The Gemara relates: There was a certain deed of gift on which two brothers-in-law were signed. Rav Yosef thought to deem it valid, as Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei. Rav Yosef assumed that Shmuel was referring to Rabbi Yosei鈥檚 opinion as cited in the mishna, that only relatives who are fit to inherit are disqualified, and one does not inherit from his brother-in-law.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诪诪讗讬 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讚诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚诪讻砖专 讘讙讬住讜 讚讬诇诪讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讚讘专讬讬转讗 讚驻住讬诇 讘讙讬住讜

Abaye said to him: From where do you conclude that Shmuel was referring to Rabbi Yosei as cited in the mishna, who deems one鈥檚 brother-in-law fit to bear witness with or about him? Perhaps he was referring to Rabbi Yosei as cited in the baraita, who deems one鈥檚 brother-in-law, though not the latter鈥檚 son and son-in-law, disqualified?

诇讗 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讚讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讻讙讜谉 讗谞讗 讜驻谞讞住 讚讛讜讬谞谉 讗讞讬 讜讙讬住讬 讗讘诇 讙讬住讬 讚注诇诪讗 砖驻讬专 讚诪讬

Rav Yosef answered: Do not let it enter your mind that Shmuel was referring to the opinion of Rabbi Yosei as cited in the baraita; as Shmuel said: For example, my brother Pine岣s and I are disqualified from bearing witness about one another. Apparently, he meant to say: We are disqualified because we are both brothers and brothers-in-law, as we married two sisters. But by inference, other brothers-in-law may well testify about each other.

讜讚讬诇诪讗 讻讙讜谉 讗谞讗 讜驻谞讞住 诪砖讜诐 讚讙讬住讜 拽讗诪专

Abaye raised an objection: But perhaps Shmuel said: For example, Pine岣s and I are disqualified, only because Pine岣s was his brother-in-law; he did not mean to say that they were disqualified only because they were brothers.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讝讬诇 拽谞讬讛 讘注讚讬 诪住讬专讛 讻专讘讬 讗诇注讝专

Due to Abaye鈥檚 objection, Rav Yosef said to the one holding the deed of gift: Since the witnesses signed on the document are disqualified from bearing witness together, go and acquire the gift by means of the witnesses who observed the transmission of the deed to you, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, who maintains that the witnesses who effect the transaction are not those who signed the deed but rather those who observed its transmission. A legal document is signed by witnesses merely to enhance its authority, not to effect the transaction.

讜讛讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘诪讝讜讬祝 诪转讜讻讜 砖讛讜讗 驻住讜诇 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讝讬诇 诇讗 砖讘拽讬 诇讬 讚讗讜转讘讬谞讬讛 诇讱

Abaye raised an objection: But doesn鈥檛 Rabbi Abba say that Rabbi Elazar concedes with regard to a document whose falsification is inherent in it, that the deed is not valid despite the fact that it was properly transferred? In other words, although the signatures on a legal document are unnecessary insofar as effecting the transaction is concerned, a document that includes invalid signatures is not valid, and this is in order to prevent others from relying upon these witnesses. Rav Yosef said to the one holding the deed of gift: Go away; the rabbis do not let me give you the gift.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讻讜壮 讗诪专 专讘讬 转谞讞讜诐 讗诪专 专讘讬 讟讘诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讘专讜谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 专讘讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗讬谉 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讻谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗讬谉 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

搂 The mishna teaches that Rabbi Yehuda says that if the witness married the daughter of one of the litigants he is disqualified even if the daughter died, provided that he has children from her. Rabbi Tan岣m says that Rabbi Tavla says that Rabbi Beruna says that Rav says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. Rava says that Rav Na岣an says: The halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. And likewise Rabba bar bar 岣na says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: The halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda.

讗讬讻讗 讚诪转谞讬 诇讛 诇讛讗 讚专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗讛讗 讗转 讝讜 讚专砖 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 壮讜讘讗转 讗诇 讛讻讛谞讬诐 讛诇讜讬诐 讜讗诇 讛砖驻讟 讗砖专 讬讛讬讛 讘讬诪讬诐 讛讛诐壮 讜讻讬 转注诇讛 注诇 讚注转讱 砖讗讚诐 讛讜诇讱 讗爪诇 砖讜驻讟 砖诇讗 讛讬讛 讘讬诪讬讜 讗诇讗 讝讛 砖讛讬讛 拽专讜讘 讜谞转专讞拽

There are those who teach this ruling of Rabba bar bar 岣na with regard to this baraita: Rabbi Yosei HaGelili interpreted this verse: 鈥淎nd you shall come to the priests the Levites, and to the judge who will be in those days鈥 (Deuteronomy 17:9). Rabbi Yosei HaGelili asks: What is the meaning of the phrase 鈥渨ho will be in those days鈥? But will it enter your mind that a person would go to a judge that was not in his days? Rather, this is referring to one who was a relative of one of the litigants due to marriage, and then became not related. The litigant can therefore come before him only in those days that they are not related, and not while they are still related.

讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬

It is with regard to this baraita that Rabba bar bar 岣na says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili. The ruling is the same as in Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 aforementioned statement, i.e., a relative who became unrelated is fit to bear witness or serve as a judge, but it was stated in a different context.

讘谞讬 讞诪讜讛 讚诪专 注讜拽讘讗

The Gemara relates: The sons of the father-in-law of Mar Ukva

Scroll To Top