Commentary for Sanhedrin 3:4
וְאֵלּוּ הֵן הַקְּרוֹבִין, אָבִיו וְאָחִיו וַאֲחִי אָבִיו וַאֲחִי אִמּוֹ וּבַעַל אֲחוֹתוֹ וּבַעַל אֲחוֹת אָבִיו וּבַעַל אֲחוֹת אִמּוֹ וּבַעַל אִמּוֹ וְחָמִיו וְגִיסוֹ, הֵן וּבְנֵיהֶן וְחַתְנֵיהֶן, וְחוֹרְגוֹ לְבַדּוֹ. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי, זוֹ מִשְׁנַת רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא. אֲבָל מִשְׁנָה רִאשׁוֹנָה, דּוֹדוֹ וּבֶן דּוֹדוֹ. וְכָל הָרָאוּי לְיָרְשׁוֹ, וְכָל הַקָּרוֹב לוֹ בְּאוֹתָהּ שָׁעָה. הָיָה קָרוֹב וְנִתְרַחֵק, הֲרֵי זֶה כָּשֵׁר. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, אֲפִלּוּ מֵתָה בִתּוֹ וְיֶשׁ לוֹ בָנִים מִמֶּנָּה, הֲרֵי זֶה קָרוֹב:
And these are the (invalidated) kin (vis-à-vis judging and testifying): his father, his brother, his father's brother, his mother's brother, his sister's husband, [the husband being like his wife], his mother's sister's husband, his mother's husband, his father-in-law, his brother-in-law [i.e., the husband of his wife's sister] — they, their sons, and their sons-in-law. [Only sons and daughters that his brother-in-law has from his wife's sister. But if he has sons from another wife, or sons-in-law married to daughters from another wife, they are not considered kin.] And his stepson alone [is considered kin, but not his stepson's son or his stepson's son-in-law. And he may not testify for his stepson's wife, for a woman is like her husband. And brothers, one vis-à-vis the other, whether from the father or from the mother, are first (of kin) in (i.e., vis-à-vis) first. Their sons, vis-à-vis each other are second in second. And the sons of their sons, vis-à-vis each other, are third in third. Third in first is always kasher, and it goes without saying, third in second. But second in second, and, it goes without saying, second in first, are both pasul (unfit). And just as you reckon for males, so you reckon for females. And every woman that you are pasul to, you are pasul to her husband. And every man that you are pasul to, you are pasul to his wife.] R. Yossi said: This is the Mishnah of R. Akiva, but an earlier Mishnah (reckons as invalidated kin) his uncle and his uncle's son. [The halachah is not in accordance with the earlier Mishnah.] And (also pasul are) all who are fit to inherit him [This is the conclusion of the Mishnah of R. Akiva and not of the earlier Mishnah. ("all who are fit to inherit him:") i.e., the father's kin. But the mother's kin, such as "his mother's brother" above, are kasher (to testify) for him. For his mother's brother is not fit to inherit him. He, however, is fit to inherit his mother's brother, for which reason he is pasul to testify for him.] and all who are kin to him at that time (the time of the testimony). If he were (once) kin [e.g., his son-in-law, who is fit to inherit him by reason of his (the son-in-law's) wife], and he became removed, [his wife having died before he witnessed this (matter of potential) testimony], he is kasher. R. Yehudah says: Even if his daughter died, but he had children from her, he is (considered) kin. [The halachah is not in accordance with R. Akiva.]
English Explanation of Mishnah Sanhedrin
English Explanation of Mishnah Sanhedrin
A suitor’s father, brother, father’s brother, mother’s brother, sister’s husband, father’s sister’s husband, mother’s sister’s husband, mother’s husband, father-in-law, or wife’s sister’s husband them and their sons and their sons-in-law; also the suitor’s step-son only [but not the stepsons’ sons]. Rabbi Yose said, “Such was the mishnah of Rabbi Akiva, but the first mishnah taught: ‘a suitor’s uncle, or his uncle’s son, and all that are qualified to be his heir. The first section lists relatives who are disqualified from testifying. The list is self explanatory, and only a few require explanation. A mother’s husband refers to someone who is not the suitor’s father. Any son or son-in-law of any of these listed relatives is likewise forbidden to testify. For instance one’s father’s brother’s son (a cousin) is forbidden to testify. The only exception is that the suitor’s stepson, i.e. his wife’s son from another marriage, is forbidden to testify but stepson’s son is allowed. Rabbi Yose gives us a glimpse into the development of the Mishnah. The previous clause was the mishnah of Rabbi Akiva, who lived from about 50-135 C.E. Rabbi Yose then relates the way it was taught before this time. While there are some legal differences between the two formulations, the most basic difference is that “first mishnah” used language that approximated Biblical style (see Lev. 25:49). This change from the earlier language to the later style which was more distinct from the Biblical language, may signify the growing independence of the Oral Torah from the Written Torah. It seems likely that in an earlier stage the Oral Torah was usually preserved as an exegesis or midrash on the verses of the Torah. The advantage to this system was that the Torah was a text known to most. The second advantage was that it was clear that Rabbinic law attained its authority by its being an interpretation of Biblical law. However, the biggest detriment was its lack of organization. Many laws appear in parallel forms in several books of the Torah. For instance laws concerning slavery appear in Exodus, Leviticus and Deuteronomy. Laws concerning the redemption of the first born appear in Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy. One who wished to know the law would not know where to find it. One of the innovations of Rabbi Akiva was to sort Jewish law into topical tractates. In our mishnah we see that as this processed developed the language of the laws changed from Biblical to Rabbinic Hebrew. As far as substantive differences between the first mishnah and Rabbi Akiva’s mishnah. There are three potential differences: his mother’s sister’s husband, his mother’s husband and his wife’s sister’s husband. These three men are not potential inheritors and therefore could testify according to the first mishnah, but they may not according to Rabbi Akiva’s mishnah.