Kosher Witnesses: Difference between revisions
From Halachipedia
→Relatives By Marriage
| 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> | ||
