Kosher Witnesses - Revision history

Unknown user: /* Laws for Witnesses */

2022-11-22T23:02:16Z

Laws for Witnesses

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:02, 22 November 2022
Line 49:		Line 49:
	#Someone who shaves with a razor, while he is violating a serious prohibition, might be a kosher witness since it is a prohibition that many violate and don't realize it is forbidden.<ref>Yabia Omer EH 10:32 s.v. amar hamechaber</ref>		#Someone who shaves with a razor, while he is violating a serious prohibition, might be a kosher witness since it is a prohibition that many violate and don't realize it is forbidden.<ref>Yabia Omer EH 10:32 s.v. amar hamechaber</ref>
	#Someone who doesn't keep Shabbat publicly is an invalid witness.<ref> Yabia Omer EH 9:2:2 writes that someone who publicly violates Shabbat is an invalid witness since he violates a very serious prohibition. In Yabia Omer EH 8:5:7 he argues with Rav Aharon Volkin and Rav Uziel that today someone who desecrates Shabbat is valid since they don't realize that it is a serious sin.</ref>		#Someone who doesn't keep Shabbat publicly is an invalid witness.<ref> Yabia Omer EH 9:2:2 writes that someone who publicly violates Shabbat is an invalid witness since he violates a very serious prohibition. In Yabia Omer EH 8:5:7 he argues with Rav Aharon Volkin and Rav Uziel that today someone who desecrates Shabbat is valid since they don't realize that it is a serious sin.</ref>
	##More generally, someone who isn't religious but was brought up not religious, many poskim hold that he is invalid to be a witness.<Ref>Radvaz 1:73 and 2:796 holds that the Karaites who don't follow Torah are invalid to be witnesses even though they were brought up with incorrect ideas. He quotes that the Mahari Bey Rav and Rav Shmuel Halevi agreed with him. Yabia Omer 8:12:2 quotes Maharshach 3:15, Maharikash (Ohelei Yakov 33), and Mabit 37 who agreed with the Radvaz. However, Rav Shlomo Gabizone (cited by Maharshach) and Rabbi Eliyahu Mizrachi 57 argued that they were kosher witnesses since they brought up with incorrect ideas. They are likened to a tinok she'nishba and considered an ones and as though they didn't sin. Radvaz argued that they're not tinok she'nishba since they had an opportunity to do teshuva and there were attempts to retrieve them in teshuva. Maharshach adds that even a tinok she'nishba should be invalid since he doesn't follow the Torah. Rav Moshe Feinstein (EH 1:82:11, 4:32:7) on his own accepts this second possibility that someone who isn't religious but was brought up with incorrect ideas is a tinok she'nishba but still an invalid witness. He says that they're comparable to non-Jews who don't follow the Torah and not acceptable as witnesses.</ref>		##More generally, someone who isn't religious but was brought up not religious, many poskim hold that he is invalid to be a witness.<Ref>Radvaz 1:73 and 2:796 holds that the Karaites who don't follow Torah are invalid to be witnesses even though they were brought up with incorrect ideas. He quotes that the Mahari Bey Rav and Rav Shmuel Halevi agreed with him. Yabia Omer 8:12:2 quotes Maharshach 3:15, Maharikash (Ohelei Yakov 33), and Mabit 37 who agreed with the Radvaz. However, Rav Shlomo Gabizone (cited by Maharshach) and Rabbi Eliyahu Mizrachi 57 argued that they were kosher witnesses since they brought up with incorrect ideas. They are likened to a tinok she'nishba and considered an ones and as though they didn't sin. Radvaz argued that they're not tinok she'nishba since they had an opportunity to do teshuva and there were attempts to retrieve them in teshuva. Maharshach adds that even a tinok she'nishba should be invalid since he doesn't follow the Torah. Rav Moshe Feinstein (EH 1:82:11, 4:32:7) on his own accepts this second possibility that someone who isn't religious but was brought up with incorrect ideas is a tinok she'nishba but still an invalid witness. He says that they're comparable to non-Jews who don't follow the Torah and not acceptable as witnesses. Igrot Moshe EH 4:59 establishes that he's not a tinok she'nishba if he saw and knew about religious Jews and would be invalid. Shach YD 267:59 quotes the Radvaz. Even though Rama EH 4:37 seems to disagree with Radvaz, see Radvaz how he explains that it isn't a proof.</ref>
	#Someone married to a non-Jew is an invalid witness.<Ref>Yabia Omer EH 8:3</ref>		#Someone married to a non-Jew is an invalid witness.<Ref>Yabia Omer EH 8:3</ref>

Unknown user: /* Laws for Witnesses */

2022-11-22T22:53:04Z

Laws for Witnesses

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:53, 22 November 2022
Line 49:		Line 49:
	#Someone who shaves with a razor, while he is violating a serious prohibition, might be a kosher witness since it is a prohibition that many violate and don't realize it is forbidden.<ref>Yabia Omer EH 10:32 s.v. amar hamechaber</ref>		#Someone who shaves with a razor, while he is violating a serious prohibition, might be a kosher witness since it is a prohibition that many violate and don't realize it is forbidden.<ref>Yabia Omer EH 10:32 s.v. amar hamechaber</ref>
	#Someone who doesn't keep Shabbat publicly is an invalid witness.<ref> Yabia Omer EH 9:2:2 writes that someone who publicly violates Shabbat is an invalid witness since he violates a very serious prohibition. In Yabia Omer EH 8:5:7 he argues with Rav Aharon Volkin and Rav Uziel that today someone who desecrates Shabbat is valid since they don't realize that it is a serious sin.</ref>		#Someone who doesn't keep Shabbat publicly is an invalid witness.<ref> Yabia Omer EH 9:2:2 writes that someone who publicly violates Shabbat is an invalid witness since he violates a very serious prohibition. In Yabia Omer EH 8:5:7 he argues with Rav Aharon Volkin and Rav Uziel that today someone who desecrates Shabbat is valid since they don't realize that it is a serious sin.</ref>
			##More generally, someone who isn't religious but was brought up not religious, many poskim hold that he is invalid to be a witness.<Ref>Radvaz 1:73 and 2:796 holds that the Karaites who don't follow Torah are invalid to be witnesses even though they were brought up with incorrect ideas. He quotes that the Mahari Bey Rav and Rav Shmuel Halevi agreed with him. Yabia Omer 8:12:2 quotes Maharshach 3:15, Maharikash (Ohelei Yakov 33), and Mabit 37 who agreed with the Radvaz. However, Rav Shlomo Gabizone (cited by Maharshach) and Rabbi Eliyahu Mizrachi 57 argued that they were kosher witnesses since they brought up with incorrect ideas. They are likened to a tinok she'nishba and considered an ones and as though they didn't sin. Radvaz argued that they're not tinok she'nishba since they had an opportunity to do teshuva and there were attempts to retrieve them in teshuva. Maharshach adds that even a tinok she'nishba should be invalid since he doesn't follow the Torah. Rav Moshe Feinstein (EH 1:82:11, 4:32:7) on his own accepts this second possibility that someone who isn't religious but was brought up with incorrect ideas is a tinok she'nishba but still an invalid witness. He says that they're comparable to non-Jews who don't follow the Torah and not acceptable as witnesses.</ref>
	#Someone married to a non-Jew is an invalid witness.<Ref>Yabia Omer EH 8:3</ref>		#Someone married to a non-Jew is an invalid witness.<Ref>Yabia Omer EH 8:3</ref>

Unknown user: /* Relatives By Marriage */

2022-11-06T21:03:48Z

Relatives By Marriage

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:03, 6 November 2022
Line 34:		Line 34:
	* Tur CM 33:23 writes that a person is not a relative of one's wife's grandparents. However, Darkei Moshe and Bet Yosef disagree and emend the Tur, since one's wife's grandparents are a sheni brishon with one relationship through marriage (baal kishto), which the Tur 33:13-14 says is a relative. Also, Tur 33:28 says that a wife's grandchild are not relatives and in Tur 33:8 he says that a step-grandfather isn't a relative. Tur 33:28 implies that grandchildren's spouses are relatives. Bach 33:18 and 33:28 holds grandchildren's spouses are not relatives and rereads the Tur.		* Tur CM 33:23 writes that a person is not a relative of one's wife's grandparents. However, Darkei Moshe and Bet Yosef disagree and emend the Tur, since one's wife's grandparents are a sheni brishon with one relationship through marriage (baal kishto), which the Tur 33:13-14 says is a relative. Also, Tur 33:28 says that a wife's grandchild are not relatives and in Tur 33:8 he says that a step-grandfather isn't a relative. Tur 33:28 implies that grandchildren's spouses are relatives. Bach 33:18 and 33:28 holds grandchildren's spouses are not relatives and rereads the Tur.
	* בן חורגו is not a relative. Pirush Hamishnayot of the Rambam (Sanhedrin 3:4), Aguda (Sanhedrin 28b), Riaz 3:9, Piskei Rid (Sanhedrin 28b), Raavan (Sanhedrin s.v. velu hen hakrovim), Rabbenu Yerucham (Meisharim 2:3), Knesset Hagedola 33:12 quoting Maharshal 80, Radvaz 3:588, Sama 33:15 according to Rambam, Erech Lechem 33:8, Levush 33:8, Taz 33:8, and Gra 33:23 all hold that a wife's grandchild is not a relative. However, Tur and Bet Yosef 33:5 imply it is a relative according to the Rambam. Rabbi Akiva Eiger (on Sama 33:15) writes that it is a relative. The Levush and Taz explain that even though this is a case of rishon bsheni it is permitted since a person isn't as emotionally connected to a wife's grandchildren from another marriage as he is to his wife's grandparents.		* בן חורגו is not a relative. Pirush Hamishnayot of the Rambam (Sanhedrin 3:4), Aguda (Sanhedrin 28b), Riaz 3:9, Piskei Rid (Sanhedrin 28b), Raavan (Sanhedrin s.v. velu hen hakrovim), Rabbenu Yerucham (Meisharim 2:3), Knesset Hagedola 33:12 quoting Maharshal 80, Radvaz 3:588, Sama 33:15 according to Rambam, Erech Lechem 33:8, Levush 33:8, Taz 33:8, and Gra 33:23 all hold that a wife's grandchild is not a relative. However, Tur and Bet Yosef 33:5 imply it is a relative according to the Rambam. Rabbi Akiva Eiger (on Sama 33:15) writes that it is a relative. The Levush and Taz explain that even though this is a case of rishon bsheni it is permitted since a person isn't as emotionally connected to a wife's grandchildren from another marriage as he is to his wife's grandparents.
	* חתן בנו or כלת בנו is a relative. Tur 33:28 says a child's son-in-law is a relative. Raavan (b"b s.v. haya yodeh), Ravyah (responsa 1044 quoting R' Yehuda Bar R' Natan), ~~and~~ Bet Yosef 33:5. However, Radvaz 3:588, Bach 33:18, Gra 33:23~~, and Taz 33:8 agree~~ hold that even a grandchild's spouse is not a relative. Yerushalmi says that Moshe is not a relative of Pinchas's wife. Bach says that the Yerushalmi in its conclusion would have even permitted Aharon to Pinchas's wife. Gra emends the Yerushalmi to say Aharon instead of Moshe.		* חתן בנו or כלת בנו is a relative. Tur 33:28 says a child's son-in-law is a relative. Raavan (b"b s.v. haya yodeh), Ravyah (responsa 1044 quoting R' Yehuda Bar R' Natan), Bet Yosef 33:5, and Taz 33:8 agree. However, Radvaz 3:588, Bach 33:18, and Gra 33:23 hold that even a grandchild's spouse is not a relative. Yerushalmi says that Moshe is not a relative of Pinchas's wife. Bach says that the Yerushalmi in its conclusion would have even permitted Aharon to Pinchas's wife. Gra emends the Yerushalmi to say Aharon instead of Moshe.
	* אבי חמיו is a relative. Darkei Moshe 33:7, Bet Yosef 33:20 and 33:23, Taz 33:8, Rabbi Akiva Eiger (on Sama 33:15), Netivot 33:8, and Tumim 33:5 all hold that a wife's grandfather is a relative. However, Radvaz 3:588, Bach 33:28, Gra 33:23, Sama 33:16 according to the Rambam, and Erech Lechem 33:8 hold that the Tur 33:23 who wrote that אבי חמיו is not a relative is correct. Ran Sanhedrin 27b, Riaz 3:9, and Piskei Rid (Sanhedrin 27b) all write that a wife's grandfather is not a relative. See Chavot Yair 17-18.</ref>		* אבי חמיו is a relative. Darkei Moshe 33:7, Bet Yosef 33:20 and 33:23, Taz 33:8, Rabbi Akiva Eiger (on Sama 33:15), Netivot 33:8, and Tumim 33:5 all hold that a wife's grandfather is a relative. However, Radvaz 3:588, Bach 33:28, Gra 33:23, Sama 33:16 according to the Rambam, and Erech Lechem 33:8 hold that the Tur 33:23 who wrote that אבי חמיו is not a relative is correct. Ran Sanhedrin 27b, Riaz 3:9, and Piskei Rid (Sanhedrin 27b) all write that a wife's grandfather is not a relative. See Chavot Yair 17-18.</ref>
	# A person may not testify about his wife once they are halachically engaged but he still may testify about her relatives.<ref>Shulchan Aruch CM 33:9. The Sama 33:17 writes that even testifying about one's engaged wife's relatives is only permitted after the fact.</ref> However, a person may even testify about his wife to be without any halachic engagement or marriage. Nonetheless, he might be biased if he is testifying about her receiving money.<ref>Rama CM 33:9</ref>		# A person may not testify about his wife once they are halachically engaged but he still may testify about her relatives.<ref>Shulchan Aruch CM 33:9. The Sama 33:17 writes that even testifying about one's engaged wife's relatives is only permitted after the fact.</ref> However, a person may even testify about his wife to be without any halachic engagement or marriage. Nonetheless, he might be biased if he is testifying about her receiving money.<ref>Rama CM 33:9</ref>

Unknown user: /* Relatives By Marriage */

2022-11-06T21:01:16Z

Relatives By Marriage

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:01, 6 November 2022
Line 34:		Line 34:
	* Tur CM 33:23 writes that a person is not a relative of one's wife's grandparents. However, Darkei Moshe and Bet Yosef disagree and emend the Tur, since one's wife's grandparents are a sheni brishon with one relationship through marriage (baal kishto), which the Tur 33:13-14 says is a relative. Also, Tur 33:28 says that a wife's grandchild are not relatives and in Tur 33:8 he says that a step-grandfather isn't a relative. Tur 33:28 implies that grandchildren's spouses are relatives. Bach 33:18 and 33:28 holds grandchildren's spouses are not relatives and rereads the Tur.		* Tur CM 33:23 writes that a person is not a relative of one's wife's grandparents. However, Darkei Moshe and Bet Yosef disagree and emend the Tur, since one's wife's grandparents are a sheni brishon with one relationship through marriage (baal kishto), which the Tur 33:13-14 says is a relative. Also, Tur 33:28 says that a wife's grandchild are not relatives and in Tur 33:8 he says that a step-grandfather isn't a relative. Tur 33:28 implies that grandchildren's spouses are relatives. Bach 33:18 and 33:28 holds grandchildren's spouses are not relatives and rereads the Tur.
	* בן חורגו is not a relative. Pirush Hamishnayot of the Rambam (Sanhedrin 3:4), Aguda (Sanhedrin 28b), Riaz 3:9, Piskei Rid (Sanhedrin 28b), Raavan (Sanhedrin s.v. velu hen hakrovim), Rabbenu Yerucham (Meisharim 2:3), Knesset Hagedola 33:12 quoting Maharshal 80, Radvaz 3:588, Sama 33:15 according to Rambam, Erech Lechem 33:8, Levush 33:8, Taz 33:8, and Gra 33:23 all hold that a wife's grandchild is not a relative. However, Tur and Bet Yosef 33:5 imply it is a relative according to the Rambam. Rabbi Akiva Eiger (on Sama 33:15) writes that it is a relative. The Levush and Taz explain that even though this is a case of rishon bsheni it is permitted since a person isn't as emotionally connected to a wife's grandchildren from another marriage as he is to his wife's grandparents.		* בן חורגו is not a relative. Pirush Hamishnayot of the Rambam (Sanhedrin 3:4), Aguda (Sanhedrin 28b), Riaz 3:9, Piskei Rid (Sanhedrin 28b), Raavan (Sanhedrin s.v. velu hen hakrovim), Rabbenu Yerucham (Meisharim 2:3), Knesset Hagedola 33:12 quoting Maharshal 80, Radvaz 3:588, Sama 33:15 according to Rambam, Erech Lechem 33:8, Levush 33:8, Taz 33:8, and Gra 33:23 all hold that a wife's grandchild is not a relative. However, Tur and Bet Yosef 33:5 imply it is a relative according to the Rambam. Rabbi Akiva Eiger (on Sama 33:15) writes that it is a relative. The Levush and Taz explain that even though this is a case of rishon bsheni it is permitted since a person isn't as emotionally connected to a wife's grandchildren from another marriage as he is to his wife's grandparents.
	* ~~בן חתנו~~ or כלת בנו is a relative. Tur 33:28 says a child's son-in-law is a relative. Raavan (b"b s.v. haya yodeh), Ravyah (responsa 1044 quoting R' Yehuda Bar R' Natan), Bet Yosef 33:5~~, and Taz 33:8 agree~~. However, Radvaz 3:588, Bach 33:18, ~~and~~ Gra 33:23 hold that even a grandchild's spouse is not a relative. Yerushalmi says that Moshe is not a relative of Pinchas's wife. Bach says that the Yerushalmi in its conclusion would have even permitted Aharon to Pinchas's wife. Gra emends the Yerushalmi to say Aharon instead of Moshe.		* חתן בנו or כלת בנו is a relative. Tur 33:28 says a child's son-in-law is a relative. Raavan (b"b s.v. haya yodeh), Ravyah (responsa 1044 quoting R' Yehuda Bar R' Natan), and Bet Yosef 33:5. However, Radvaz 3:588, Bach 33:18, Gra 33:23, and Taz 33:8 agree hold that even a grandchild's spouse is not a relative. Yerushalmi says that Moshe is not a relative of Pinchas's wife. Bach says that the Yerushalmi in its conclusion would have even permitted Aharon to Pinchas's wife. Gra emends the Yerushalmi to say Aharon instead of Moshe.
	* אבי חמיו is a relative. Darkei Moshe 33:7, Bet Yosef 33:20 and 33:23, Taz 33:8, Rabbi Akiva Eiger (on Sama 33:15), Netivot 33:8, and Tumim 33:5 all hold that a wife's grandfather is a relative. However, Radvaz 3:588, Bach 33:28, Gra 33:23, Sama 33:16 according to the Rambam, and Erech Lechem 33:8 hold that the Tur 33:23 who wrote that אבי חמיו is not a relative is correct. Ran Sanhedrin 27b, Riaz 3:9, and Piskei Rid (Sanhedrin 27b) all write that a wife's grandfather is not a relative. See Chavot Yair 17-18.</ref>		* אבי חמיו is a relative. Darkei Moshe 33:7, Bet Yosef 33:20 and 33:23, Taz 33:8, Rabbi Akiva Eiger (on Sama 33:15), Netivot 33:8, and Tumim 33:5 all hold that a wife's grandfather is a relative. However, Radvaz 3:588, Bach 33:28, Gra 33:23, Sama 33:16 according to the Rambam, and Erech Lechem 33:8 hold that the Tur 33:23 who wrote that אבי חמיו is not a relative is correct. Ran Sanhedrin 27b, Riaz 3:9, and Piskei Rid (Sanhedrin 27b) all write that a wife's grandfather is not a relative. See Chavot Yair 17-18.</ref>
	# A person may not testify about his wife once they are halachically engaged but he still may testify about her relatives.<ref>Shulchan Aruch CM 33:9. The Sama 33:17 writes that even testifying about one's engaged wife's relatives is only permitted after the fact.</ref> However, a person may even testify about his wife to be without any halachic engagement or marriage. Nonetheless, he might be biased if he is testifying about her receiving money.<ref>Rama CM 33:9</ref>		# A person may not testify about his wife once they are halachically engaged but he still may testify about her relatives.<ref>Shulchan Aruch CM 33:9. The Sama 33:17 writes that even testifying about one's engaged wife's relatives is only permitted after the fact.</ref> However, a person may even testify about his wife to be without any halachic engagement or marriage. Nonetheless, he might be biased if he is testifying about her receiving money.<ref>Rama CM 33:9</ref>

Unknown user: /* Relatives By Marriage */

2022-06-21T14:25:39Z

Relatives By Marriage

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:25, 21 June 2022
Line 33:		Line 33:
	# A wife's relatives are one's own. For example, her children or children-in-law from another marriage, her parents or step-parents are all relatives.<ref>Shulchan Aruch CM 33:8</ref> There is a dispute about one's wife's grandparents if they are considered relatives for testimony.<ref>Sama 33:5 and 33:16 holds that a wife's grandparent's are not considered relatives according to the Rambam. Bach 33:28 and Gra 33:23 agree. However, the Taz 33:8 argues that they are relatives. Darkei Moshe CM 33:7 and Bet Yosef CM 33:23 s.v. avi chamiv clearly hold like the Taz.		# A wife's relatives are one's own. For example, her children or children-in-law from another marriage, her parents or step-parents are all relatives.<ref>Shulchan Aruch CM 33:8</ref> There is a dispute about one's wife's grandparents if they are considered relatives for testimony.<ref>Sama 33:5 and 33:16 holds that a wife's grandparent's are not considered relatives according to the Rambam. Bach 33:28 and Gra 33:23 agree. However, the Taz 33:8 argues that they are relatives. Darkei Moshe CM 33:7 and Bet Yosef CM 33:23 s.v. avi chamiv clearly hold like the Taz.
	* Tur CM 33:23 writes that a person is not a relative of one's wife's grandparents. However, Darkei Moshe and Bet Yosef disagree and emend the Tur, since one's wife's grandparents are a sheni brishon with one relationship through marriage (baal kishto), which the Tur 33:13-14 says is a relative. Also, Tur 33:28 says that a wife's grandchild are not relatives and in Tur 33:8 he says that a step-grandfather isn't a relative. Tur 33:28 implies that grandchildren's spouses are relatives. Bach 33:18 and 33:28 holds grandchildren's spouses are not relatives and rereads the Tur.		* Tur CM 33:23 writes that a person is not a relative of one's wife's grandparents. However, Darkei Moshe and Bet Yosef disagree and emend the Tur, since one's wife's grandparents are a sheni brishon with one relationship through marriage (baal kishto), which the Tur 33:13-14 says is a relative. Also, Tur 33:28 says that a wife's grandchild are not relatives and in Tur 33:8 he says that a step-grandfather isn't a relative. Tur 33:28 implies that grandchildren's spouses are relatives. Bach 33:18 and 33:28 holds grandchildren's spouses are not relatives and rereads the Tur.
	* בן חורגו is not a relative. Pirush Hamishnayot of the Rambam (Sanhedrin 3:4), Aguda (Sanhedrin 28b), Riaz 3:9, Piskei Rid (Sanhedrin 28b), Raavan (Sanhedrin s.v. velu hen hakrovim), Rabbenu Yerucham (Meisharim 2:3), Knesset Hagedola 33:12 quoting Maharshal 80, Radvaz 3:588, Sama 33:16 according to Rambam, Erech Lechem 33:8, Levush 33:8, Taz 33:8, and Gra 33:23 all hold that a wife's grandchild is not a relative. However, Tur and Bet Yosef 33:5 imply it is a relative according to the Rambam. Rabbi Akiva Eiger (on Sama 33:15) writes that it is a relative. The Levush and Taz explain that even though this is a case of rishon bsheni it is permitted since a person isn't as emotionally connected to a wife's grandchildren from another marriage as he is to his wife's grandparents.		* בן חורגו is not a relative. Pirush Hamishnayot of the Rambam (Sanhedrin 3:4), Aguda (Sanhedrin 28b), Riaz 3:9, Piskei Rid (Sanhedrin 28b), Raavan (Sanhedrin s.v. velu hen hakrovim), Rabbenu Yerucham (Meisharim 2:3), Knesset Hagedola 33:12 quoting Maharshal 80, Radvaz 3:588, Sama 33:15 according to Rambam, Erech Lechem 33:8, Levush 33:8, Taz 33:8, and Gra 33:23 all hold that a wife's grandchild is not a relative. However, Tur and Bet Yosef 33:5 imply it is a relative according to the Rambam. Rabbi Akiva Eiger (on Sama 33:15) writes that it is a relative. The Levush and Taz explain that even though this is a case of rishon bsheni it is permitted since a person isn't as emotionally connected to a wife's grandchildren from another marriage as he is to his wife's grandparents.
	* בן חתנו or כלת בנו is a relative. Tur 33:28 says a child's son-in-law is a relative. Raavan (b"b s.v. haya yodeh), Ravyah (responsa 1044 quoting R' Yehuda Bar R' Natan), Bet Yosef 33:5, and Taz 33:8 agree. However, Radvaz 3:588, Bach 33:18, and Gra 33:23 hold that even a grandchild's spouse is not a relative. Yerushalmi says that Moshe is not a relative of Pinchas's wife. Bach says that the Yerushalmi in its conclusion would have even permitted Aharon to Pinchas's wife. Gra emends the Yerushalmi to say Aharon instead of Moshe.		* בן חתנו or כלת בנו is a relative. Tur 33:28 says a child's son-in-law is a relative. Raavan (b"b s.v. haya yodeh), Ravyah (responsa 1044 quoting R' Yehuda Bar R' Natan), Bet Yosef 33:5, and Taz 33:8 agree. However, Radvaz 3:588, Bach 33:18, and Gra 33:23 hold that even a grandchild's spouse is not a relative. Yerushalmi says that Moshe is not a relative of Pinchas's wife. Bach says that the Yerushalmi in its conclusion would have even permitted Aharon to Pinchas's wife. Gra emends the Yerushalmi to say Aharon instead of Moshe.
	* אבי חמיו is a relative. Darkei Moshe 33:7, Bet Yosef 33:20 and 33:23, Taz 33:8, Rabbi Akiva Eiger (on Sama 33:15), Netivot 33:8, and Tumim 33:5 all hold that a wife's grandfather is a relative. However, Radvaz 3:588, Bach 33:28, Gra 33:23, Sama 33:16 according to the Rambam, and Erech Lechem 33:8 hold that the Tur 33:23 who wrote that אבי חמיו is not a relative is correct. Ran Sanhedrin 27b, Riaz 3:9, and Piskei Rid (Sanhedrin 27b) all write that a wife's grandfather is not a relative. See Chavot Yair 17-18.</ref>		* אבי חמיו is a relative. Darkei Moshe 33:7, Bet Yosef 33:20 and 33:23, Taz 33:8, Rabbi Akiva Eiger (on Sama 33:15), Netivot 33:8, and Tumim 33:5 all hold that a wife's grandfather is a relative. However, Radvaz 3:588, Bach 33:28, Gra 33:23, Sama 33:16 according to the Rambam, and Erech Lechem 33:8 hold that the Tur 33:23 who wrote that אבי חמיו is not a relative is correct. Ran Sanhedrin 27b, Riaz 3:9, and Piskei Rid (Sanhedrin 27b) all write that a wife's grandfather is not a relative. See Chavot Yair 17-18.</ref>

Unknown user: /* Laws for Witnesses */

2022-06-17T03:56:51Z

Laws for Witnesses

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:56, 17 June 2022
Line 47:		Line 47:
	# The witnesses are called edim and must testify exactly what they heard and not just say someone is obligated to pay his friend because sometimes if the witnesses heard a person admit he owes money in truth he isn't obligated.<ref>Shulchan Aruch CM 32:1</ref>		# The witnesses are called edim and must testify exactly what they heard and not just say someone is obligated to pay his friend because sometimes if the witnesses heard a person admit he owes money in truth he isn't obligated.<ref>Shulchan Aruch CM 32:1</ref>
	# If a person hired false witnesses to testify that Reuven owes Shimon money and Reuven was awarded money based on these false edim, if in truth Reuven didn't owe Shimon, Shimon doesn't admit that he doesn't deserve the money, the edim don't admit to lying, and the one who hired them does admit that he hired them as false witnesses, in the heavenly court he is obligated to pay Reuven for his loss.<ref>Bava Kama 55b, Shulchan Aruch CM 32:2</ref>		# If a person hired false witnesses to testify that Reuven owes Shimon money and Reuven was awarded money based on these false edim, if in truth Reuven didn't owe Shimon, Shimon doesn't admit that he doesn't deserve the money, the edim don't admit to lying, and the one who hired them does admit that he hired them as false witnesses, in the heavenly court he is obligated to pay Reuven for his loss.<ref>Bava Kama 55b, Shulchan Aruch CM 32:2</ref>
			#Someone who shaves with a razor, while he is violating a serious prohibition, might be a kosher witness since it is a prohibition that many violate and don't realize it is forbidden.<ref>Yabia Omer EH 10:32 s.v. amar hamechaber</ref>
			#Someone who doesn't keep Shabbat publicly is an invalid witness.<ref> Yabia Omer EH 9:2:2 writes that someone who publicly violates Shabbat is an invalid witness since he violates a very serious prohibition. In Yabia Omer EH 8:5:7 he argues with Rav Aharon Volkin and Rav Uziel that today someone who desecrates Shabbat is valid since they don't realize that it is a serious sin.</ref>
			#Someone married to a non-Jew is an invalid witness.<Ref>Yabia Omer EH 8:3</ref>

	==Witnesses for a Wedding==		==Witnesses for a Wedding==

Unknown user: /* Relatives By Marriage */

2022-06-07T03:31:56Z

Relatives By Marriage

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:31, 7 June 2022
Line 35:		Line 35:
	* בן חורגו is not a relative. Pirush Hamishnayot of the Rambam (Sanhedrin 3:4), Aguda (Sanhedrin 28b), Riaz 3:9, Piskei Rid (Sanhedrin 28b), Raavan (Sanhedrin s.v. velu hen hakrovim), Rabbenu Yerucham (Meisharim 2:3), Knesset Hagedola 33:12 quoting Maharshal 80, Radvaz 3:588, Sama 33:16 according to Rambam, Erech Lechem 33:8, Levush 33:8, Taz 33:8, and Gra 33:23 all hold that a wife's grandchild is not a relative. However, Tur and Bet Yosef 33:5 imply it is a relative according to the Rambam. Rabbi Akiva Eiger (on Sama 33:15) writes that it is a relative. The Levush and Taz explain that even though this is a case of rishon bsheni it is permitted since a person isn't as emotionally connected to a wife's grandchildren from another marriage as he is to his wife's grandparents.		* בן חורגו is not a relative. Pirush Hamishnayot of the Rambam (Sanhedrin 3:4), Aguda (Sanhedrin 28b), Riaz 3:9, Piskei Rid (Sanhedrin 28b), Raavan (Sanhedrin s.v. velu hen hakrovim), Rabbenu Yerucham (Meisharim 2:3), Knesset Hagedola 33:12 quoting Maharshal 80, Radvaz 3:588, Sama 33:16 according to Rambam, Erech Lechem 33:8, Levush 33:8, Taz 33:8, and Gra 33:23 all hold that a wife's grandchild is not a relative. However, Tur and Bet Yosef 33:5 imply it is a relative according to the Rambam. Rabbi Akiva Eiger (on Sama 33:15) writes that it is a relative. The Levush and Taz explain that even though this is a case of rishon bsheni it is permitted since a person isn't as emotionally connected to a wife's grandchildren from another marriage as he is to his wife's grandparents.
	* בן חתנו or כלת בנו is a relative. Tur 33:28 says a child's son-in-law is a relative. Raavan (b"b s.v. haya yodeh), Ravyah (responsa 1044 quoting R' Yehuda Bar R' Natan), Bet Yosef 33:5, and Taz 33:8 agree. However, Radvaz 3:588, Bach 33:18, and Gra 33:23 hold that even a grandchild's spouse is not a relative. Yerushalmi says that Moshe is not a relative of Pinchas's wife. Bach says that the Yerushalmi in its conclusion would have even permitted Aharon to Pinchas's wife. Gra emends the Yerushalmi to say Aharon instead of Moshe.		* בן חתנו or כלת בנו is a relative. Tur 33:28 says a child's son-in-law is a relative. Raavan (b"b s.v. haya yodeh), Ravyah (responsa 1044 quoting R' Yehuda Bar R' Natan), Bet Yosef 33:5, and Taz 33:8 agree. However, Radvaz 3:588, Bach 33:18, and Gra 33:23 hold that even a grandchild's spouse is not a relative. Yerushalmi says that Moshe is not a relative of Pinchas's wife. Bach says that the Yerushalmi in its conclusion would have even permitted Aharon to Pinchas's wife. Gra emends the Yerushalmi to say Aharon instead of Moshe.
	* אבי חמיו is a relative. Darkei Moshe 33:7, Bet Yosef 33:23, Taz 33:8, Rabbi Akiva Eiger (on Sama 33:15), Netivot 33:8, and Tumim 33:5 all hold that a wife's grandfather is a relative. However, Radvaz 3:588, Bach 33:28, Gra 33:23, Sama 33:16 according to the Rambam, and Erech Lechem 33:8 hold that the Tur 33:23 who wrote that אבי חמיו is not a relative is correct. Ran Sanhedrin 27b, Riaz 3:9, and Piskei Rid (Sanhedrin 27b) all write that a wife's grandfather is not a relative. See Chavot Yair 17-18.</ref>		* אבי חמיו is a relative. Darkei Moshe 33:7, Bet Yosef 33:20 and 33:23, Taz 33:8, Rabbi Akiva Eiger (on Sama 33:15), Netivot 33:8, and Tumim 33:5 all hold that a wife's grandfather is a relative. However, Radvaz 3:588, Bach 33:28, Gra 33:23, Sama 33:16 according to the Rambam, and Erech Lechem 33:8 hold that the Tur 33:23 who wrote that אבי חמיו is not a relative is correct. Ran Sanhedrin 27b, Riaz 3:9, and Piskei Rid (Sanhedrin 27b) all write that a wife's grandfather is not a relative. See Chavot Yair 17-18.</ref>
	# A person may not testify about his wife once they are halachically engaged but he still may testify about her relatives.<ref>Shulchan Aruch CM 33:9. The Sama 33:17 writes that even testifying about one's engaged wife's relatives is only permitted after the fact.</ref> However, a person may even testify about his wife to be without any halachic engagement or marriage. Nonetheless, he might be biased if he is testifying about her receiving money.<ref>Rama CM 33:9</ref>		# A person may not testify about his wife once they are halachically engaged but he still may testify about her relatives.<ref>Shulchan Aruch CM 33:9. The Sama 33:17 writes that even testifying about one's engaged wife's relatives is only permitted after the fact.</ref> However, a person may even testify about his wife to be without any halachic engagement or marriage. Nonetheless, he might be biased if he is testifying about her receiving money.<ref>Rama CM 33:9</ref>

Unknown user: /* Relatives By Marriage */

2022-05-18T16:33:47Z

Relatives By Marriage

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:33, 18 May 2022
Line 33:		Line 33:
	# A wife's relatives are one's own. For example, her children or children-in-law from another marriage, her parents or step-parents are all relatives.<ref>Shulchan Aruch CM 33:8</ref> There is a dispute about one's wife's grandparents if they are considered relatives for testimony.<ref>Sama 33:5 and 33:16 holds that a wife's grandparent's are not considered relatives according to the Rambam. Bach 33:28 and Gra 33:23 agree. However, the Taz 33:8 argues that they are relatives. Darkei Moshe CM 33:7 and Bet Yosef CM 33:23 s.v. avi chamiv clearly hold like the Taz.		# A wife's relatives are one's own. For example, her children or children-in-law from another marriage, her parents or step-parents are all relatives.<ref>Shulchan Aruch CM 33:8</ref> There is a dispute about one's wife's grandparents if they are considered relatives for testimony.<ref>Sama 33:5 and 33:16 holds that a wife's grandparent's are not considered relatives according to the Rambam. Bach 33:28 and Gra 33:23 agree. However, the Taz 33:8 argues that they are relatives. Darkei Moshe CM 33:7 and Bet Yosef CM 33:23 s.v. avi chamiv clearly hold like the Taz.
	* Tur CM 33:23 writes that a person is not a relative of one's wife's grandparents. However, Darkei Moshe and Bet Yosef disagree and emend the Tur, since one's wife's grandparents are a sheni brishon with one relationship through marriage (baal kishto), which the Tur 33:13-14 says is a relative. Also, Tur 33:28 says that a wife's grandchild are not relatives and in Tur 33:8 he says that a step-grandfather isn't a relative. Tur 33:28 implies that grandchildren's spouses are relatives. Bach 33:18 and 33:28 holds grandchildren's spouses are not relatives and rereads the Tur.		* Tur CM 33:23 writes that a person is not a relative of one's wife's grandparents. However, Darkei Moshe and Bet Yosef disagree and emend the Tur, since one's wife's grandparents are a sheni brishon with one relationship through marriage (baal kishto), which the Tur 33:13-14 says is a relative. Also, Tur 33:28 says that a wife's grandchild are not relatives and in Tur 33:8 he says that a step-grandfather isn't a relative. Tur 33:28 implies that grandchildren's spouses are relatives. Bach 33:18 and 33:28 holds grandchildren's spouses are not relatives and rereads the Tur.
	* בן חורגו is not a relative. Pirush Hamishnayot of the Rambam (Sanhedrin 3:4), Aguda (Sanhedrin 28b), Riaz 3:9, Raavan (Sanhedrin s.v. velu hen hakrovim), Rabbenu Yerucham (Meisharim 2:3), Knesset Hagedola 33:12 quoting Maharshal 80, Sama 33:16 according to Rambam, Gra 33:23. However, Tur and Bet Yosef 33:5 imply it is a relative.		* בן חורגו is not a relative. Pirush Hamishnayot of the Rambam (Sanhedrin 3:4), Aguda (Sanhedrin 28b), Riaz 3:9, Piskei Rid (Sanhedrin 28b), Raavan (Sanhedrin s.v. velu hen hakrovim), Rabbenu Yerucham (Meisharim 2:3), Knesset Hagedola 33:12 quoting Maharshal 80, Radvaz 3:588, Sama 33:16 according to Rambam, Erech Lechem 33:8, Levush 33:8, Taz 33:8, and Gra 33:23 all hold that a wife's grandchild is not a relative. However, Tur and Bet Yosef 33:5 imply it is a relative according to the Rambam. Rabbi Akiva Eiger (on Sama 33:15) writes that it is a relative. The Levush and Taz explain that even though this is a case of rishon bsheni it is permitted since a person isn't as emotionally connected to a wife's grandchildren from another marriage as he is to his wife's grandparents.
	* בן חתנו is a relative. Tur 33:28 says a child's son-in-law is a relative. Bet Yosef 33:5 ~~agrees~~. However, Bach 33:18 and Gra 33:23 hold that even Aharon ~~is kosher~~ to the ~~wife~~ of ~~Pinchas~~.		* בן חתנו or כלת בנו is a relative. Tur 33:28 says a child's son-in-law is a relative. Raavan (b"b s.v. haya yodeh), Ravyah (responsa 1044 quoting R' Yehuda Bar R' Natan), Bet Yosef 33:5, and Taz 33:8 agree. However, Radvaz 3:588, Bach 33:18, and Gra 33:23 hold that even a grandchild's spouse is not a relative. Yerushalmi says that Moshe is not a relative of Pinchas's wife. Bach says that the Yerushalmi in its conclusion would have even permitted Aharon to Pinchas's wife. Gra emends the Yerushalmi to say Aharon instead of Moshe.
	* אבי חמיו is a relative. Darkei Moshe 33:7, Bet Yosef 33:23. However, Bach 33:28, Gra 33:23, ~~and~~ Sama 33:16 according to the Rambam hold that the Tur 33:23 who wrote that אבי חמיו is not a relative is correct.</ref>		* אבי חמיו is a relative. Darkei Moshe 33:7, Bet Yosef 33:23, Taz 33:8, Rabbi Akiva Eiger (on Sama 33:15), Netivot 33:8, and Tumim 33:5 all hold that a wife's grandfather is a relative. However, Radvaz 3:588, Bach 33:28, Gra 33:23, Sama 33:16 according to the Rambam, and Erech Lechem 33:8 hold that the Tur 33:23 who wrote that אבי חמיו is not a relative is correct. Ran Sanhedrin 27b, Riaz 3:9, and Piskei Rid (Sanhedrin 27b) all write that a wife's grandfather is not a relative. See Chavot Yair 17-18.</ref>
	# A person may not testify about his wife once they are halachically engaged but he still may testify about her relatives.<ref>Shulchan Aruch CM 33:9. The Sama 33:17 writes that even testifying about one's engaged wife's relatives is only permitted after the fact.</ref> However, a person may even testify about his wife to be without any halachic engagement or marriage. Nonetheless, he might be biased if he is testifying about her receiving money.<ref>Rama CM 33:9</ref>		# A person may not testify about his wife once they are halachically engaged but he still may testify about her relatives.<ref>Shulchan Aruch CM 33:9. The Sama 33:17 writes that even testifying about one's engaged wife's relatives is only permitted after the fact.</ref> However, a person may even testify about his wife to be without any halachic engagement or marriage. Nonetheless, he might be biased if he is testifying about her receiving money.<ref>Rama CM 33:9</ref>

Unknown user: /* Relatives By Marriage */

2022-05-18T14:19:38Z

Relatives By Marriage

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:19, 18 May 2022
Line 31:		Line 31:
	## For example, one's half-brother's half-brother isn't a relative for testimony.<ref>Rav Chisda in Sanhedrin 28b, Shulchan Aruch CM 33:7</ref>		## For example, one's half-brother's half-brother isn't a relative for testimony.<ref>Rav Chisda in Sanhedrin 28b, Shulchan Aruch CM 33:7</ref>
	## Another example is the father of man and a father of a woman whose children are married (mechutanim) and aren't considered relatives.<ref>Shulchan Aruch CM 33:6</ref>		## Another example is the father of man and a father of a woman whose children are married (mechutanim) and aren't considered relatives.<ref>Shulchan Aruch CM 33:6</ref>
	# A wife's relatives are one's own. For example, her children or children-in-law from another marriage, her parents or step-parents are all relatives.<ref>Shulchan Aruch CM 33:8</ref> There is a dispute about one's wife's grandparents if they are considered relatives for testimony.<ref>Sama 33:16 holds that a wife's grandparent's are not considered relatives~~. (See Sama 33:5 who says that it is a dispute between~~ the Rambam ~~and Rif who are lenient and the Rosh who is strict~~.) Bach 33:28 and Gra 33:23 agree. However, the Taz 33:8 argues that they are relatives. Darkei Moshe CM 33:7 and Bet Yosef CM 33:23 s.v. avi chamiv clearly hold like the Taz.		# A wife's relatives are one's own. For example, her children or children-in-law from another marriage, her parents or step-parents are all relatives.<ref>Shulchan Aruch CM 33:8</ref> There is a dispute about one's wife's grandparents if they are considered relatives for testimony.<ref>Sama 33:5 and 33:16 holds that a wife's grandparent's are not considered relatives according to the Rambam. Bach 33:28 and Gra 33:23 agree. However, the Taz 33:8 argues that they are relatives. Darkei Moshe CM 33:7 and Bet Yosef CM 33:23 s.v. avi chamiv clearly hold like the Taz.
	* Tur CM 33:23 writes that a person is not a relative of one's wife's grandparents. However, Darkei Moshe and Bet Yosef disagree and emend the Tur, since one's wife's grandparents are a sheni brishon with one relationship through marriage (baal kishto), which the Tur 33:13-14 says is a relative. Also, Tur 33:28 says that a wife's grandchild are not relatives and in Tur 33:8 he says that a step-grandfather isn't a relative. Tur 33:28 implies that grandchildren's spouses are relatives. Bach 33:18 and 33:28 holds grandchildren's spouses are not relatives and rereads the Tur.		* Tur CM 33:23 writes that a person is not a relative of one's wife's grandparents. However, Darkei Moshe and Bet Yosef disagree and emend the Tur, since one's wife's grandparents are a sheni brishon with one relationship through marriage (baal kishto), which the Tur 33:13-14 says is a relative. Also, Tur 33:28 says that a wife's grandchild are not relatives and in Tur 33:8 he says that a step-grandfather isn't a relative. Tur 33:28 implies that grandchildren's spouses are relatives. Bach 33:18 and 33:28 holds grandchildren's spouses are not relatives and rereads the Tur.
	* בן חורגו is not a relative. Pirush Hamishnayot of the Rambam (Sanhedrin 3:4), Aguda (Sanhedrin 28b), Riaz 3:9, Raavan (Sanhedrin s.v. velu hen hakrovim), Rabbenu Yerucham (Meisharim 2:3), Knesset Hagedola 33:12 quoting Maharshal 80. However, Tur and Bet Yosef 33:5 imply it is a relative.</ref>		* בן חורגו is not a relative. Pirush Hamishnayot of the Rambam (Sanhedrin 3:4), Aguda (Sanhedrin 28b), Riaz 3:9, Raavan (Sanhedrin s.v. velu hen hakrovim), Rabbenu Yerucham (Meisharim 2:3), Knesset Hagedola 33:12 quoting Maharshal 80, Sama 33:16 according to Rambam, Gra 33:23. However, Tur and Bet Yosef 33:5 imply it is a relative.
			* בן חתנו is a relative. Tur 33:28 says a child's son-in-law is a relative. Bet Yosef 33:5 agrees. However, Bach 33:18 and Gra 33:23 hold that even Aharon is kosher to the wife of Pinchas.
			* אבי חמיו is a relative. Darkei Moshe 33:7, Bet Yosef 33:23. However, Bach 33:28, Gra 33:23, and Sama 33:16 according to the Rambam hold that the Tur 33:23 who wrote that אבי חמיו is not a relative is correct.</ref>
	# A person may not testify about his wife once they are halachically engaged but he still may testify about her relatives.<ref>Shulchan Aruch CM 33:9. The Sama 33:17 writes that even testifying about one's engaged wife's relatives is only permitted after the fact.</ref> However, a person may even testify about his wife to be without any halachic engagement or marriage. Nonetheless, he might be biased if he is testifying about her receiving money.<ref>Rama CM 33:9</ref>		# A person may not testify about his wife once they are halachically engaged but he still may testify about her relatives.<ref>Shulchan Aruch CM 33:9. The Sama 33:17 writes that even testifying about one's engaged wife's relatives is only permitted after the fact.</ref> However, a person may even testify about his wife to be without any halachic engagement or marriage. Nonetheless, he might be biased if he is testifying about her receiving money.<ref>Rama CM 33:9</ref>

Unknown user: /* Relatives By Marriage */

2022-05-18T13:30:32Z

Relatives By Marriage

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:30, 18 May 2022
Line 32:		Line 32:
	## Another example is the father of man and a father of a woman whose children are married (mechutanim) and aren't considered relatives.<ref>Shulchan Aruch CM 33:6</ref>		## Another example is the father of man and a father of a woman whose children are married (mechutanim) and aren't considered relatives.<ref>Shulchan Aruch CM 33:6</ref>
	# A wife's relatives are one's own. For example, her children or children-in-law from another marriage, her parents or step-parents are all relatives.<ref>Shulchan Aruch CM 33:8</ref> There is a dispute about one's wife's grandparents if they are considered relatives for testimony.<ref>Sama 33:16 holds that a wife's grandparent's are not considered relatives. (See Sama 33:5 who says that it is a dispute between the Rambam and Rif who are lenient and the Rosh who is strict.) Bach 33:28 and Gra 33:23 agree. However, the Taz 33:8 argues that they are relatives. Darkei Moshe CM 33:7 and Bet Yosef CM 33:23 s.v. avi chamiv clearly hold like the Taz.		# A wife's relatives are one's own. For example, her children or children-in-law from another marriage, her parents or step-parents are all relatives.<ref>Shulchan Aruch CM 33:8</ref> There is a dispute about one's wife's grandparents if they are considered relatives for testimony.<ref>Sama 33:16 holds that a wife's grandparent's are not considered relatives. (See Sama 33:5 who says that it is a dispute between the Rambam and Rif who are lenient and the Rosh who is strict.) Bach 33:28 and Gra 33:23 agree. However, the Taz 33:8 argues that they are relatives. Darkei Moshe CM 33:7 and Bet Yosef CM 33:23 s.v. avi chamiv clearly hold like the Taz.
	* Tur CM 33:23 writes that a person is not a relative of one's wife's grandparents. However, Darkei Moshe and Bet Yosef disagree and emend the Tur, since one's wife's grandparents are a sheni brishon with one relationship through marriage (baal kishto), which the Tur 33:13-14 says is a relative. Also, Tur 33:28 says that a wife's grandchild are not relatives and in Tur 33:8 he says that a step-grandfather isn't a relative. Tur 33:28 implies that grandchildren's spouses are relatives. Bach 33:18 and 33:28 holds grandchildren's spouses are not relatives and rereads the Tur. </ref>		* Tur CM 33:23 writes that a person is not a relative of one's wife's grandparents. However, Darkei Moshe and Bet Yosef disagree and emend the Tur, since one's wife's grandparents are a sheni brishon with one relationship through marriage (baal kishto), which the Tur 33:13-14 says is a relative. Also, Tur 33:28 says that a wife's grandchild are not relatives and in Tur 33:8 he says that a step-grandfather isn't a relative. Tur 33:28 implies that grandchildren's spouses are relatives. Bach 33:18 and 33:28 holds grandchildren's spouses are not relatives and rereads the Tur.
			* בן חורגו is not a relative. Pirush Hamishnayot of the Rambam (Sanhedrin 3:4), Aguda (Sanhedrin 28b), Riaz 3:9, Raavan (Sanhedrin s.v. velu hen hakrovim), Rabbenu Yerucham (Meisharim 2:3), Knesset Hagedola 33:12 quoting Maharshal 80. However, Tur and Bet Yosef 33:5 imply it is a relative.</ref>
	# A person may not testify about his wife once they are halachically engaged but he still may testify about her relatives.<ref>Shulchan Aruch CM 33:9. The Sama 33:17 writes that even testifying about one's engaged wife's relatives is only permitted after the fact.</ref> However, a person may even testify about his wife to be without any halachic engagement or marriage. Nonetheless, he might be biased if he is testifying about her receiving money.<ref>Rama CM 33:9</ref>		# A person may not testify about his wife once they are halachically engaged but he still may testify about her relatives.<ref>Shulchan Aruch CM 33:9. The Sama 33:17 writes that even testifying about one's engaged wife's relatives is only permitted after the fact.</ref> However, a person may even testify about his wife to be without any halachic engagement or marriage. Nonetheless, he might be biased if he is testifying about her receiving money.<ref>Rama CM 33:9</ref>