## Sanhedrin Daf 28b

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

גְּוִילֵי. בְּעוֹ מִינֵּיהּ: מַהוּ שֶׁיָּעִיד אָדָם בְּאֵשֶׁת חוֹרְגוֹ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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?**


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

בְּסוּרָא אָמְרִי: בַּעַל כְּאִשְׁתּוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**In Sura they say** that Rav gave the following answer: **A husband is** considered **like his wife.** Since he is married to the son’s mother, the son’s wife is considered like his daughter-in-law.


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

בְּפוּמְבְּדִיתָא אָמְרִי: אִשָּׁה כְּבַעְלָהּ. דְּאָמַר רַב הוּנָא אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: מִנַּיִין שֶׁהָאִשָּׁה כְּבַעְלָהּ? דִּכְתִיב: ״עֶרְוַת אֲחִי אָבִיךָ לֹא תְגַלֵּה אֶל אִשְׁתּוֹ לֹא תִקְרָב דֹּדָתְךָ הִיא״. וַהֲלֹא אֵשֶׁת דּוֹדוֹ הִיא! מִכְּלָל דְּאִשָּׁה כְּבַעְלָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**In Pumbedita they say** a different version of Rav’s 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 Naḥman says: From where** is it derived **that a wife is** considered **like her husband? As it is written: “You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father’s brother; you shall not approach his wife: She is your aunt”** (Leviticus 18:14). **Isn’t she the wife of his uncle,** and not his aunt, i.e., his father’s sister? It can therefore be concluded, **by inference,** that **a wife is** considered **like her husband.**


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

וּבַעַל אִמּוֹ, הוּא וּבְנוֹ וַחֲתָנוֹ. בְּנוֹ – הַיְינוּ אָחִיו?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches that among the relatives disqualified from testifying are **his mother’s husband, he,** i.e., the mother’s husband himself, **and his son, and his son-in-law.** The Gemara challenges: **The son of** his mother’s husband **is** the same as **his brother,** i.e., his half brother, and the mishna already stated that his brother is disqualified.


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

אָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה: לֹא נִצְרְכָה אֶלָּא לַאֲחִי הָאָח.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


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

רַב חִסְדָּא אַכְשַׁר בַּאֲחִי הָאָח. אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ: לָא שְׁמִיעַ לָךְ הָא דְּרַבִּי יִרְמְיָה? אֲמַר לְהוּ: לָא שְׁמִיעַ לִי, כְּלוֹמַר, לָא סְבִירָא לִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ḥisda 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 Ḥisda **said to them: I did not hear** this, **as if to say: I do not hold** in accordance with this opinion.


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

אִי הָכִי, הַיְינוּ אָחִיו! תְּנָא אָחִיו מִן הָאָב, וְקָתָנֵי אָחִיו מִן הָאֵם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **If so,** the question asked above recurs: The son of his mother’s husband **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.**


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

אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: אֲבִי חָתָן וַאֲבִי כַּלָּה מְעִידִין זֶה עַל זֶה, וְלָא דָּמוּ לַהֲדָדֵי אֶלָּא כִּי אַכְלָא לְדַנָּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rav Ḥisda 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.


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

אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה: מֵעִיד אָדָם לְאִשְׁתּוֹ אֲרוּסָה. אָמַר רָבִינָא: לָא אֲמַרַן אֶלָּא לְאַפּוֹקֵי מִינַּהּ, אֲבָל לְעַיּוֹלֵי לַהּ – לָא מְהֵימַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabba bar bar Ḥana 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.


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

וְלָא הִיא, לָא שְׁנָא לְאַפּוֹקֵי וְלָא שְׁנָא לְעַיּוֹלֵי – לָא מְהֵימַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.**


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

מַאי דַּעְתָּיךְ? כִּדְאָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַמֵּי מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּעוּלָּא: אִשְׁתּוֹ אֲרוּסָה לֹא אוֹנֵן וְלֹא מִטַּמֵּא לַהּ, וְכֵן הִיא לֹא אוֹנֶנֶת וְלֹא מִטַּמְּאָה לוֹ. מֵתָה – אֵינוֹ יוֹרְשָׁהּ, מֵת הוּא – גּוֹבָה כְּתוּבָּתָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: **What is your thinking** that you deem a man fit to bear witness concerning his betrothed wife? It is **as Rabbi Ḥiyya 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.


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

הָתָם, בִּשְׁאֵרוֹ תְּלָה רַחֲמָנָא, אַכַּתִּי לָאו שְׁאֵרוֹ הִיא. הָכָא, מִשּׁוּם אִיקָּרוֹבֵי דַּעְתָּא הוּא, וְהָא אִיקָּרַבָא דַּעְתֵּיהּ לְגַבַּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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 **“his kin”** (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.


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

חוֹרְגוֹ לְבַדּוֹ. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: חוֹרְגוֹ לְבַדּוֹ. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: גִּיסוֹ. וְתַנְיָא אִידַּךְ: גִּיסוֹ לְבַדּוֹ. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: חוֹרְגוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches that **his stepson alone** is disqualified from bearing witness about him, but not his stepson’s 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.**


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

מַאי קָאָמַר? אִילֵּימָא הָכִי קָאָמַר: חוֹרְגוֹ לְבַדּוֹ, וְהוּא הַדִּין לְגִיסוֹ. וַאֲתָא רַבִּי יוֹסֵי לְמֵימַר: גִּיסוֹ לְבַדּוֹ, וְהוּא הַדִּין לְחוֹרְגוֹ. אֶלָּא מַתְנִיתִין דְּקָתָנֵי: גִּיסוֹ הוּא וּבְנוֹ וַחֲתָנוֹ, מַנִּי? לָא רַבִּי יְהוּדָה וְלָא רַבִּי יוֹסֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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’s 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’s brother-in-law are not disqualified.


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

וְאֶלָּא הָכִי קָאָמַר: חוֹרְגוֹ לְבַדּוֹ, אֲבָל גִּיסוֹ – הוּא וּבְנוֹ וַחֲתָנוֹ. וַאֲתָא רַבִּי יוֹסֵי לְמֵימַר: גִּיסוֹ לְבַדּוֹ, אֲבָל חוֹרְגוֹ – הוּא וּבְנוֹ וַחֲתָנוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


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

וְאֶלָּא, הָא דְתָנֵי רַבִּי חִיָּיא: שְׁמוֹנָה אָבוֹת, שֶׁהֵן עֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבָּעָה, כְּמַאן? לָא כְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי וְלָא כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But** then, **in accordance with whose** opinion **is** the *baraita* **that Rabbi Ḥiyya 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.**


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

אֶלָּא הָכִי קָאָמַר: חוֹרְגוֹ לְבַדּוֹ, אֲבָל גִּיסוֹ – הוּא וּבְנוֹ וַחֲתָנוֹ. וַאֲתָא רַבִּי יוֹסֵי לְמֵימַר: גִּיסוֹ לְבַדּוֹ, וְכׇל שֶׁכֵּן חוֹרְגוֹ. וּמַתְנִיתִין – רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, בָּרַיְיתָא – רַבִּי יוֹסֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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 Ḥiyya taught is in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Yosei.**


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

אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Yehuda says** that **Shmuel says:** The ***halakha*** is **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yosei.**


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

הָהִיא מַתַּנְתָּא דַּהֲווֹ חֲתִימִי עֲלַהּ תְּרֵי גִּיסֵי, סְבַר רַב יוֹסֵף לְאַכְשׁוֹרַהּ, דְּאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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’s 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.


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

אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: מִמַּאי דְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי דְּמַתְנִיתִין, דְּמַכְשַׁר בְּגִיסוֹ? דִּילְמָא רַבִּי יוֹסֵי דְּבָרַיְיתָא, דְּפָסֵיל בְּגִיסוֹ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said to him: From where** do you conclude **that** Shmuel was referring to **Rabbi Yosei** as cited **in the mishna, who deems** one’s **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’s **brother-in-law,** though not the latter’s son and son-in-law, **disqualified?**


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

לָא סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ, דְּאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: כְּגוֹן אֲנָא וּפִנְחָס דְּהָוֵינַן אֲחֵי וְגִיסֵי, אֲבָל גִּיסֵי דְּעָלְמָא שַׁפִּיר דָּמֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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 **Pineḥas 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.


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

וְדִילְמָא, כְּגוֹן אֲנָא וּפִנְחָס, מִשּׁוּם גִיסוֹ קָאָמַר?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Abaye raised an objection: **But perhaps** Shmuel **said: For example, Pineḥas and I** are disqualified, only **because** Pineḥas was **his brother-in-law;** he did not mean to say that they were disqualified only because they were brothers.


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

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: זִיל, קַנְיַהּ בְּעֵדֵי מְסִירָה, כְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Due to Abaye’s 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.


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

וְהָאָמַר רַבִּי אַבָּא: מוֹדֶה רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בִּמְזוּיָּף מִתּוֹכוֹ שֶׁהוּא פָּסוּל? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: זִיל, לָא שָׁבְקִי לִי דְּאוֹתְבִינֵּיהּ לָךְ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Abaye raised an objection: **But doesn’t 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.


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

רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר כּוּ׳. אָמַר רַבִּי תַּנְחוּם אָמַר רַבִּי טַבְלָא אָמַר רַבִּי בְּרוֹנָא אָמַר רַב: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה. רָבָא אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: אֵין הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה. וְכֵן אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: אֵין הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ 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 Tanḥum 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 Naḥman says:** The ***halakha*** is **not in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda. And likewise Rabba bar bar Ḥana says** that **Rabbi Yoḥanan says:** The ***halakha*** is **not in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda.**


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

אִיכָּא דְּמַתְנֵי לַהּ לְהָא דְּרַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אַהָא: אֶת זוֹ דָּרַשׁ רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי, ״וּבָאתָ אֶל הַכֹּהֲנִים הַלְוִיִּם וְאֶל הַשֹּׁפֵט אֲשֶׁר יִהְיֶה בַּיָּמִים הָהֵם״. וְכִי תַּעֲלֶה עַל דַּעְתְּךָ שֶׁאָדָם הוֹלֵךְ אֵצֶל שׁוֹפֵט שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה בְּיָמָיו? אֶלָּא זֶה שֶׁהָיָה קָרוֹב וְנִתְרַחֵק.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**There are those who teach** this ruling **of Rabba bar bar Ḥana with regard to this** *baraita*: **Rabbi Yosei HaGelili interpreted this** verse: **“And you shall come to the priests the Levites, and to the judge who will be in those days”** (Deuteronomy 17:9). Rabbi Yosei HaGelili asks: What is the meaning of the phrase “who will be in those days”? **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.


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

אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
It is with regard to this *baraita* that **Rabba bar bar Ḥana says** that **Rabbi Yoḥanan says:** The ***halakha*** is **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yosei HaGelili.** The ruling is the same as in Rabbi Yoḥanan’s 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.


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

בְּנֵי חֲמוּהּ דְּמָר עוּקְבָא

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara relates: **The sons of the father-in-law of Mar Ukva**