We have shown that fathers cannot testify for sons, nor sons for fathers, and all the more so fathers (who are brothers) for each other;

Question: What is the source that sons (of Reuven) cannot testify for sons (of Reuven's brother)?

Answer: If they could testify for each other, the Torah would have written 'Lo Yumesu Avos Al Ben';

Rather, it wrote "Al Banim", to teach that sons cannot testify for each other.

We have shown that sons cannot testify for sons;

Question: What is the source that two relatives cannot testify together (about someone else)?

Answer #1 (Rami bar Chama): Reasoning teaches this;

(Beraisa): Witnesses are not made Zomemim unless both are Huzmu.

If relatives could testify about someone else, they could be killed due to each other's testimony!

Objection (Rava - Mishnah): If David testified about three years of Chazakah, and three brothers testified, each about one of the three years, (this is testimony of Chazakah, for) testimony of each year is separate (the brothers do not testify together);

Regarding Hazamah, it is like one testimony (they are exempt unless all of them are Huzmu).

Question: If they will be Huzmu, the brothers will pay due to each other's testimony!

Answer: You must say that they pay due to the Hazamah, and not due to each other's testimony

Likewise, if relatives testified together and were Huzmu, they are killed due to the Hazamah, and not due to each other's testimony!

Answer #2 (Rava): Rather, the Torah could have said 'Ben Al Avos' or 'Hem Al Avos';

Instead, it says "u'Vanim" to teach that Banim (i.e. relatives) cannot testify with each other.

Question: This teaches about paternal relatives. What is the source for maternal relatives?

Answer: It says 'Avos' twice. If we do not need it to teach about paternal relatives, we use it to teach about maternal relatives.

Question: This teaches that relatives cannot testify to obligate each other. What is the source that they cannot testify to benefit each other?

Answer: It says 'Yumesu' twice. We do not need the latter to teach about Chiyuv, so we use it to teach about Zechus.

Question: This teaches about capital cases. What is the source for monetary cases?

Answer: "Mishpat Echad Yihyeh Lachem" - the law is the same.

(Rav): My paternal uncle cannot testify for me, nor his son or son-in-law;

I cannot testify for my uncle, nor can my son or son-in-law testify for him.

Question: Why can't Rav's son testify for him? The son is a Shelishi (third generation (i.e. grandson) of Rav's father), and the uncle is a Rishon (first generation, i.e. a brother of Rav's father);

The Mishnah says that a Sheni (e.g. Ploni's son) cannot testify for a Sheni (Ploni's nephew) or a Rishon (Ploni's brother). It does not say that a Shelishi cannot testify for a Rishon!

Answer #1: The Mishnah says '(their sons and) Choseneihem (their sons-in-law)', i.e. the sons-in-law of the sons (of the relatives listed above), i.e. a Shelishi.

Question: Why didn't the Mishnah simply teach the grandsons (of these relatives)?

Answer: By the way, it teaches that a husband is like his wife (he may not testify about anyone disqualified to testify about her).

Objection: R. Chiya taught that there are eight primary relatives, (i.e. those in the first clause of the Mishnah), which lead to 24 disqualified relatives. (Before, we understood that the other 16 are the sons and sons-in-law of the eight);

However, if 'Choseneihem' means the sons-in-law of their sons, and all the more so their grandsons), there are 24 more, making 32! (We could have said 40, i.e. five for each of the eight relatives - his son, grandson, son-in-law, and son-in-law of the son. Rashi - the son-in-law and son-in-law of the son are counted only like one, since both are in the category of son-in-law. Ri - we do not counts grandsons, for they are not explicit in the Mishnah (we learn from a Kal va'Chomer). Really, some relatives are counted more than once. In any case, it should not say 24.)

Answer #2: Indeed, Choseneiheim means (simply) the sons- in-law of the eight;

We called them sons-in-law of the sons of the relatives, because (since a son-in-law is not a man's own child,) he is considered like a third generation.

Objection: If a son-in-law is like a Shelishi, then the son-in-law of a paternal uncle (one of the eight primary relatives) is like a Shelishi with a Sheni. Rav was Machshir this! (He disqualified a Shlishi only with a Rishon.)

Answer #3: Rav's law is like R. Elazar.

(Beraisa - R. Elazar): Just like my paternal uncle, his son and son-in-law cannot testify for me, also the son of my paternal uncle, his son and son-in- law.

Objection: Still, the grandson of a paternal uncle is a Shelishi with a Sheni, and Rav was Machshir this!

Answer: Rav holds like him in one aspect (that a Shelishi is disqualified from testifying), he argues with him in one aspect (Rav disqualifies only a Shelishi with a Rishon. R. Elazar disqualifies even with a Sheni).

Question: What is Rav's reason?

Answer: "Lo Yumesu Avos Al Banim u'Vanim" comes to include another generation (a grandson (Shelishi) with a Rishon.

R. Elazar learns from "Al Banim" that this Pesul (of a Shelishi) to the father also applies to his children (Sheniyim).

(Rav Nachman): The brother of my mother-in-law and his son cannot testify for me. The son of my mother-in-law's sister cannot testify for me.

Support (Beraisa): The husbands of a man's sister and (paternal and maternal) aunts, and their sons and sons- in-law cannot testify for him. (If Ploni is the son (or nephew) of Almoni's mother-in-law, Almoni is the son-in- law of Ploni's sister (or aunt).)

Question (Rav Ashi): What is the law of the father-in- law's brother and (paternal and maternal) nephews?

Answer (Ula - Mishnah - R. Akiva): A brother, a paternal or maternal uncle... and their sons and sons-in-law (are disqualified). (If Ploni is the brother (or nephew) of Almoni's father-in-law, Almoni is the son-in-law of Ploni's brother (or uncle).)

Question: Can Ploni testify about his step-son's wife (Leah)?

Answer: A husband is like his wife (therefore, he is like Leah's mother-in-law); a wife is like her husband (therefore, a mother-in-law is like a father-in-law, i.e. disqualified).

(Rav Huna) Question: What is the source that a wife is like her husband?

Answer - Question: Why does it say "Ervas Achi Avicha... Ishto... Dodascha Hi"? She is not his aunt. She is his uncle's wife!

Answer: This teaches that a wife is like her husband.

(Mishnah): His step-father... and his son and son-in-law.

Question: His step-father's son is his (maternal) brother (which was already taught)!

Answer (R. Yirmeyah): This teaches about (his step- father's son from a different woman, i.e.) the (paternal) brother of his (maternal) brother.

Rav Chisda ruled that the brother of a brother may testify. He argues with R. Yirmeyah.

Question: If so, what is the Chidush of the step-father's son?

Answer: This teaches about a maternal brother. When the Mishnah said 'brother', it referred to a paternal brother.

(Rav Chisda): Ploni's father can testify for Ploni's father-in-law.

(Rabah bar bar Chanah): A man can testify for his Arusah (betrothed wife).

(Ravina): This is only to obligate her money, but not to be Mezakeh her.

Rejection: He cannot testify for her at all.

They thought that he is not considered a relative, due to R. Chiya bar Ami's law.

(R. Chiya bar Ami): If an Arusah dies, her husband does not become an Avel (mourner). He is not commanded (if he is a Kohen, he is forbidden) to become Tamei by engaging in her burial. He does not inherit her;

If he dies, she does not become an Avelah (and she is not commanded to become Tamei. Some delete this from the text), and she collects her Kesuvah.

Really, one cannot learn from there. Regarding Tum'ah and inheritance it says "Sh'eiro." This is not until Nisu'in;

Disqualification from testimony depends on feeling affinity. He feels this from the time of Kidushin.

(Mishnah): A step-son is disqualified, just himself (but not his son or son-in-law).

(Beraisa #1): A step-son is disqualified, just himself;

R. Yosi says, Giso (just he is disqualified).

(Beraisa #2): Giso is disqualified, just himself;

R. Yehudah says, a step-son is disqualified.

Question: What does Beraisa #1 mean?

Suggestion: A step-son is disqualified, just himself, and (the first Tana (i.e. R. Yehudah, as we see from Beraisa #2) did not teach Giso, but) the same applies to Giso;

R. Yosi teaches that just Giso is disqualified, and (he did not teach a step-son, but) the same applies to a step-son.

Rejection: If so, our Mishnah (which disqualifies Giso, his son and his son-in-law) is neither like R. Yehudah nor like R. Yosi!

Answer #1: A step-son is disqualified, i.e. only himself, but Giso, his son and his son-in-law are all disqualified;

R. Yosi says, Giso is disqualified, i.e. only himself, but a step-son, his son and his son-in-law are all disqualified.

Objection: R. Chiya taught that there are eight primary relatives, (i.e. those in the Reisha), which lead to 24 disqualified relatives (also their sons and sons-in-law);

This is not like R. Yosi, nor like R. Yehudah! (Each teaches a ninth primary relative.)

Answer #2: A step-son is disqualified, i.e. only himself, but Giso, his son and his son-in-law are all disqualified;

R. Yosi says, Giso is disqualified, i.e. only himself, and all the more so a step-son (is disqualified, only himself).

The Mishnah is like R. Yehudah. R. Chiya holds like R. Yosi.

(Rav Yehudah citing Shmuel): The Halachah follows R. Yosi.

Two Gisim signed on a gift document. Rav Yosef wanted to Machshir it, because Rav Yehudah said that the Halachah follows R. Yosi (in the Mishnah, who says that only relatives who could inherit each other are disqualified).

Abaye: Perhaps he did not refer to R. Yosi of the Mishnah, rather, R. Yosi of the Beraisa (who disqualified Giso)!

Objection: That cannot be. Shmuel said 'I cannot testify for Pinchas, for we are brothers and Gisim';

Inference: A Gis who is not a brother is not disqualified!

Answer: Perhaps Shmuel meant 'I cannot testify for Pinchas because we are Gisim' (this itself disqualifies).

Rav Yosef: The giver should give the document to the recipient with Edei Mesirah (witnesses who saw it given, for they empower a document), according to R. Elazar.

Objection: R. Aba taught that R. Elazar admits that a document signed by invalid witnesses is invalid!

Rav Yosef: Sorry, I cannot help you (the document is worthless).

(Mishnah - R. Yehudah): (If Reuven has children from Leah he is considered a relative of her father even after she dies.)

(R. Tanchum): The Halachah follows R. Yehudah.

(Rava): The Halachah does not follow R. Yehudah.

Version #1 (Rabah bar bar Chanah): The Halachah does not follow R. Yehudah.

Version #2 (R. Yosi ha'Galili) Question: "U'Vosa... El ha'Shofet Asher Yihyeh ba'Yamim ha'Hem" - obviously, one can go only to a judge in his day!

Answer: Rather, this permits a judge who was a relative, and now is unrelated.

(Rabah bar bar Chanah): The Halachah follows R. Yosi ha'Galili.