Mr. Isaacs borrowed $10,000 from Mr. Silver for a two-year period. Mr. Isaacs’ son, Yaakov, still single but already working for several years, signed as a guarantor on the loan.
When the loan was due, Mr. Silver asked Mr. Isaacs to pay. A dispute arose between them.
“I repaid you in cash a year ago,” Mr. Isaacs claimed. “I received a large bonus from work then and wanted to clear the debt.”
“You didn’t repay me anything,” Mr. Silver replied. “The loan is first due now, and I still hold the loan document!”
“Nonetheless, I paid you,” insisted Mr. Isaacs. “I have witnesses to attest to that!”
Mr. Silver sued Mr. Isaacs in Rabbi Dayan’s beis din.
“There is no disputing the loan,” Rabbi Dayan said. “Do you have any evidence of repayment?” he asked Mr. Isaacs.
“I have two witnesses,” answered Mr. Isaacs. “They can testify that I repaid Mr. Silver in their presence.”
“Who are the witnesses?” asked Rabbi Dayan.
“The first is Mr. Weiss,” answered Mr. Isaacs.
“Mr. Weiss?!” exclaimed Mr. Silver. “How can Mr. Weiss testify on behalf of Mr. Isaacs? They’re related!”
“How are Mr. Isaacs and Mr. Weiss related?” asked Rabbi Dayan.
“They are mechutanim, in-laws,” replied Mr. Silver. “Mr. Isaacs’ son, Yaakov, is married to Mr. Weiss’ daughter, Rachel.”
“Although our children are married, that doesn’t make us relatives,” argued Mr. Isaacs. “Anyway, the testimony is about repayment that occurred a year ago, before the wedding.”
“When was the wedding?” asked Rabbi Dayan.
“Three months ago,” replied Mr. Isaacs. “At the time of payment, a year ago, our children hadn’t even met.”
“Still, Mr. Weiss is certainly related to his son-in-law, Yaakov Isaacs,” objected Mr. Silver. “Yaakov is a guarantor to his father’s loan, so how can Mr. Weiss testify about it?!”
“We’re not discussing the guarantor,” countered Mr. Isaacs. “We’re discussing whether I paid. Yaakov is not the issue here, even if he is now related to Mr. Weiss!”
Finally, the two turned to Rabbi Dayan and asked, “Can Mr. Weiss testify here? Why or why not?”
“The Torah disqualifies relatives of a litigant from testifying,” replied Rabbi Dayan. “This applies whether they want to testify to their relative’s benefit or detriment, and even if they are righteous like Moshe and Aharon, who are not suspect to lie (C.M. 33:10).
“Nonetheless, the Gemara (Sanhedrin 28b) teaches that mechutanim are allowed to testify on behalf of each other. They are not considered relatives but rather as entities that complement each other (‘like a barrel and its cover’). Thus, in principle, Mr. Weiss could testify for Mr. Isaacs (C.M. 33:6).
However, a person is considered related to his son-in-law, because a husband and wife are considered as one entity. Thus, just as Mr. Weiss is disqualified to testify regarding his daughter, Rachel, he is disqualified to testify regarding his son-in-law, Yaakov (C.M. 33:3, 13).
Here, although the testimony relates to Mr. Isaacs, the Gemara (Makkos 7a) teaches that a guarantor of the loan is considered like the borrower, because if he doesn’t pay, the guarantor is liable. Thus, relatives of the guarantor also may not testify about the case. This applies whether they testify against the borrower, e.g., that he borrowed or that he didn’t repay (Rashi, Ra’avad) or whether they testify for the borrower’s benefit, e.g., that he already repaid (Ramban in Milchamos; Rabbeinu Yerucham) (C.M. 33:16; Sma 33:24; Shach 33:14).
Moreover, even though the testimony is about payment a year ago, before Mr. Weiss and Yaakov became related, since now they are related, Mr. Weiss is disqualified. In the opposite case, as well, if the event occurred when the witness was related, but he is no longer related at the time of testimony – such as if the couple got divorced – the former relative may not testify. Only if the witness was neither related at the time of event nor at the time of testimony may he testify, even though he was related in between (C.M. 33:13).
“Thus,” concluded Rabbi Dayan, “Mr. Weiss may not testify regarding this loan, because he is now a relative of the guarantor, Yaakov.”
Verdict: Mechutanim are not disqualified as relatives; a father-in-law is disqualified as a relative. Relatives to the guarantor also may not testify about the loan, whether for his benefit or his detriment. Relatives may not testify even about an event before they became related.
