Sanhedrin 28: Disqualifying Extended Family Members from Testifying

Our last Mishna taught in part which relatives are disqualified from acting as witnesses.  Today some of those relationships and the limitations on those relationships are explored.

First the rabbis consider sons and fathers and sons testifying for each other.  The rabbis attempt to use the wording of the Mishna, similar baraitot, and other proof texts to understand exactly when these close relatives might be able to testify either for each other or together against someone else.  Next, the rabbis consider whether or not the sons or fathers of the relationships listed are permitted to testify.  One of the major questions asked is why the Mishna would not have specified exactly who should testify and who should not.  Why infer that a grandparent is included in this list?  The rabbis note that expanding this list generationally creates a huge number of people who cannot act as witnesses.

Which other relatives might be disqualified from testifying?  The one's in-law's brother or sister and their children cannot testify.  He children of brother and sisters-in-law cannot testify.  Their nieces and nephews cannot testify.  A husband (of a step-son's wife, for example) is also disqualified. The rabbis say that a wife is like her husband, and thus disqualified.  The rabbis try to understand whether or not a groom could testify for his fiancee.  They use the laws of inheritance in attempt to clarify the matter, to no avail.

The Mishna had taught that a step-son is disqualified.  Is this also true of a gis, one's brother-in-law (wife's husband)?  Or could his sons or sons-in-law be disqualified as well?  The rabbis argue about this question, providing examples of some who have refused to act as witnesses for each other because of their connection as giso.

This conversation, exaggerating even rabbinical halachot, seem to point to the closeness of family relationships at the time of the Talmud.  One could not testify against what we might call a distant relative, for this could cause us to speak falsely in order to advantage our relatives.  In today's society, we do not have names for half of these specific relationships.  A gis, for example, is a brother-in-law. But he is specifically the husband of a man's sister.  Today we call all brothers-in-law our brothers-in-law.  Perhaps families were able to help each other more in the times of the Talmud; those automatic communities created places of security.  Or perhaps not - instead, people might have felt locked into relationships with many unsavoury family members.