(R. Ba citing Rav Huna): The witnesses must stand at the time when they testify, for it says v'Amdu Shnei ha'Anashim."

(R. Yirmeyah citing R. Avahu): Also the litigants must stand at the time when they receive the Din, for it says "Asher Lahem ha'Riv Lifnei Hash-m."

Question: It says "Lo Yumsu Avos Al Banim." It already says "Ish b'Chet'o Yumas"! Why does it say Lo Yumsu Avos Al Banim?

Answer: Sons may not die through testimony of fathers, and not fathers through testimony of sons. This teaches that witnesses may not be relatives of the litigants.

Question: What is the source that the witnesses may not be relatives of each other?

Answer: Exert yourself [and you will find the answer]! If one of them was Huzam, he is not killed unless his colleague was Huzam. If you say so (that relatives may testify together), he is killed through his [relative's] mouth!

Question: What is the source that the witnesses may not be relatives of the judges?

Answer: Exert yourself! If they were Huzam, are they not killed through their his mouths (of the judges, who sentenced them)?!

Question: What is the source that the judges may not be relatives of each other?

Answer: The Torah said to kill based on witnesses, and to kill based on judges. Just like witnesses may not be relatives of each other, also judges may not be relatives of each other.

Question: This teaches fathers and sons (they may not testify together). What is the source for other relatives?

Answer (Zeira): [The prefix Vov in] "u'Vanim" includes other relatives.

Question: Until now we explained according to R. Akiva [who expounds Vov - Ridvaz]. According to R. Yishmael [who does not expound Vov], what is the source?

Answer (Beraisa - R. Yishmael): "V'Shaftu ha'Edah Bein ha'Makeh [u'Vein Go'el ha'Dam]" - the Edah (congregation that judges) may not be relatives of the Makeh (one who struck), or of the victim;

R. Yosi says, if you would say so (that they may be relatives of the victim), it turns out that Beis Din are Go'alei ha'Dam! (They must judge between Go'el ha'Dam and the Makeh!) From here, the judges may not be relatives of the litigants. (It is unreasonable to say that they may be relatives of the Makeh, but not of the victim.)

Question: What is the source that the witnesses may not be relatives of the litigants?

Answer: The Torah said to kill based on witnesses, and to kill based on Matim (judges, who tilt the verdict to follow the majority). Just like judges may not be relatives of the litigants, also witnesses [may not be related to the litigants].

Question: What is the source that the witnesses may not be related to each other?

Answer: Exert yourself! If one of them was Huzam, he is not killed unless his colleague was Huzam. If you say so (that relatives may testify together), he is killed through his [relative's] mouth!

Question: What is the source that the witnesses may not be relatives of the judges?

Answer: Exert yourself! If they were Huzam, are they not killed through [the judges, who sentenced them]?!

Question: [Our Mishnah teaches that Shevu'as ha'Edus applies] to Kesherim, and not to Pesulim. What is the source?

Answer: "Im Lo Yagid v'Nasa Avono", i.e. one who tells [testimony] and his colleague must pay. This excludes a Pasul who testifies, and his colleague does not pay money.

[Shevu'as ha'Edus applies] through Beis Din. This excludes one witness [his testimony does not force one to pay].

Suggestion: When [the litigants] told him "we accept you like two", perhaps he is liable [for Shevu'as ha'Edus, for his testimony would obligate payment]!

Rejection: "V'Hu Ed Oh Ra'ah Oh Yada Im Lo Yagid v'Nasa Avono" - one who is Kosher for testimony from the Torah. This excludes one witness, who is not Kosher to testify [mid'Oraisa, to force one to pay].

Not in front of Beis Din [he is exempt. We learn from] "Im Lo Yagid v'Nasa Avono" - a place where one testifies, and his colleague must pay. This excludes outside of Beis Din, for even if he testifies, his colleague need not pay.

Question: What is the source [to obligate only if there were] two witnesses?

Answer: "V'Hu Ed" - this is two [witnesses];

This is like R. Yishmael. R. Yishmael said, wherever the Torah wrote "Ed" Stam, it refers to two, unless the verse informs you that it is one.

Question: We find that R. Yishmael taught [that one is liable for Shevu'as ha'Edus only if there are] two witnesses. [If] one witness [swore to deny testimony], is he liable for Shevu'as Bituy?

Answer: It is possible to say [that he is liable]? Another witness is proper to join to him and obligate him Shevu'as ha'Edus. Will you obligate him for Shevu'as ha'Edus and Shevu'as Bituy?! (If he is liable for Shevu'as Bituy, the Chiyuv will not vanish when another witness comes, and he becomes liable for Shevu'as ha'Edus.)

Question: [If] a relative [swore to deny testimony], is he liable for Shevu'as Bituy?

Answer #1: We learn from the following teaching of R. Ba in the name of Shmuel. If one swore that Ploni gave a Maneh to Almoni, and it turns out that he did not give, since it is not b'Yado for the future (he cannot make Ploni give, so if he swore so, he is exempt for Bituy), it is not b'Yado (he is exempt also) for the past.

Answer #2: Or, we learn from [a Mishnah]. If one said to [Ploni] "where is my ox?", and he said "I don't know what you are talking about" (he denied that he was a Shomer Chinam, and really it died, so Ploni did not need to pay. He imposed a Shevu'ah on Ploni; Ploni is exempt);

(Rav): He is exempt from Shevu'as ha'Pikadon, but he is liable for Shevu'as Bituy;

(R. Yochanan): Since there is a Mitzvah to appease him [with an oath], he is not liable for Shevu'as Bituy. (He did not opt to swear on his own. Even R. Yochanan would obligate a relative who swore to deny testimony, since he had no Mitzvah to swear.)

Question: Does Rav not hold that there is a Mitzvah to appease him?

Answer: He should appease him with Emes, and not with Sheker.

Support (Beraisa - R. Yishmael): "V'Nasa Avono" - [he must bring] a Korban. (A relative does not bring for Shevu'as ha'Edus, so he brings for Shevu'as Bituy.)

Question: What is his source [that it is only if he swore in] Beis Din?

Answer: [We learn from a Gezeirah Shavah] "Hagadah-Hagadah." Just like Hagadah there (Zaken Mamrei - "v'Higidu Lecha Es Devar ha'Mishpat" is in) Beis Din, also here (Shevu'as ha'Edus, it says "Im Lo Yagid", is in) Beis Din.

Opinion #1: We accept witnesses only if they saw [the testimony] together.

Opinion #2 (R. Yehoshua ben Korchah): It is even if they saw one after the other.

(R. Yirmeyah citing R. Shmuel bar Rav Yitzchak citing Rav Yitzchak citing Rav): Chachamim agree to R. Yehoshua ben Korchah about witnesses of Bechorah (a father said who is his Bechor) and witnesses of Chazakah (Ploni used a particular land for three years).

(R. Ba citing R. Yirmeyah): The same applies to witnesses of Simanim (hairs to establish adulthood).

The following is obvious. If this [witness] says "I saw two hairs on his back", and this one says "I saw two hairs on his back" [they join];

If one says "I saw one hair on his back", and this one says "I saw one hair on his stomach", it has no effect, and all the more so [if both of them saw one hair] on his back (perhaps he has only one hair)!

If two say "we saw one hair on his back", and two say "we saw one hair on his stomach", R. Yosi bei R. Bun and Rav Hoshayah bar R. Shamai argue about this - one of them says Pasul (they do not join), and one of them says Kosher;

The one who says Pasul, it is because he is like one who testifies about Chetzi Siman (one hair has no significance. Testimony must be about a full matter.) The one who says Kosher, it is because I can say perhaps [the latter witnesses did not see the first hair, for] it fell out. (Each pai saw everything possible to see at the time. The first witnesses did not see the latter hair, for it had not yet sprouted.)

If one says "[I saw] two hairs on his back", and one says "I saw two on his stomach", R. Ba says that all (R. Yosi and Rav Hoshayah) agree that it is Kosher;

R. Chagai says that all agree that it is Pasul;

R. Yosi says that they argue about this. R. Yudan says that they argue about this.

R. Yosi (to R. Chagai): R. Yudan says like me.

R. Chagai (to R. Yosi): I argue with [R. Yudan's] Rebbi (R. Ba). All the more so, with him (I do not fear to argue)!

Support (R. Mana): R. Chagai said properly - if there are four signatures on a document, and this [witness] testified about two of them, and this testified about two of them, and there was a claim [that it is a forgery], does this [validation] help at all? Doesn't every signature need two witnesses about it?!

And here, every Siman needs two witnesses!

(R. Chaninah): We learn from years of Chazakah - if one testified that he ate the first, second and third year, and one testified that he ate the fourth, fifth and sixth, does this help at all? We explained this like KORBAN HA'EDAH.)

Doesn't every [year of] Chazakah need two witnesses? Here, every Siman needs two witnesses!