Sanhedrin

AND A STEP-FATHER, HE, HIS SON AND SON-IN-LAW. HIS SON! But that is his brother!  — R. Jeremiah said: This is only added to indicate [the exclusion of] a brother's brother.  R. Hisda declared a brother's brother eligible. Said the Rabbis to him: Are you unaware of R. Jeremiah's dictum? — 'I have not heard it,'he answered, that is to say, 'I do not accept it.'  If so, [the difficulty remains,] he [i.e., his step-father's son] is HIS BROTHER! — He [the Tanna] enumerates both a paternal and a maternal brother. R. Hisda said: The fathers of the bride and bridegroom may testify for each other; their inter-relationship is no more than that of a lid to a barrel. Rabbah b. Bar Hana said: One may testify for his betrothed wife.  Rabina remarked: That is only where his evidence is to her disadvantage;  but if it is to her advantage, he is not to be believed.  But [in reality] that is not so: it makes no difference whether his evidence is to her advantage or disadvantage; in neither case is he to be believed. [For] on what [do you base] your opinion [that you do not regard him as a relative]? On R. Hiyya b. Ammi's dictum stated on the authority of 'Ulla, viz.: When the betrothed wife [of a Priest dies], he is not obliged to mourn as an Onen  nor may he defile himself.  Similarly, she is not bound to mourn as an Oneneth  [if he dies] nor to defile herself.  If she dies, he does not inherit from her;  but if he dies, she receives her Kethubah!  But there, the Divine law has made it all  depend on the fact that she is 'she'ero' [his wife],  a designation which cannot be applied to a betrothed wife.Whereas here [the evidence of a relative is inadmissible] because of mental affinity; and such mental affinity does exist here [in the case of a betrothed woman and her groom]. ONE'S STEP-SON HIMSELF. Our Rabbis taught: A step-son himself. R. Jose said: A brother-in-law.  Another [Baraitha] has been taught: A brother-in-law himself. R. Judah said: A step-son. What does this mean? Shall we assume it to mean as follows: A step-son himself, and the same applies to a brother-in-law; whereas R. Jose reversed this: A brother-in-law himself, and the same applies to a step-son?  If so, when our Mishnah states: A BROTHER-IN-LAW, HIS SON AND SON-IN-LAW, whose view is this? It is neither R. Judah's nor R. Jose's!  But [again] if this is its meaning: A step-son himself; while as for a brother-in-law, [the exclusion extends to] his son and son-in-law; whereas R. Jose reversed this: A brother-in-law himself; while as for a step-son, [the exclusion extends to] his son and son-in-law too: in that case, what R. Hiyya taught, viz., that the Mishnah enumerates eight chief relations which [together with the sons and sons-in-law] involve twenty-four in all,  is neither the opinion of R. Judah nor that of R. Jose! — 32 Hence this must be the meaning: A step-son himself; but as for a brother-in-law, his son and son-in-law too [are included]; whereas R. Jose ruled: A brother-in-law himself, and a fortiori his step-son. The Mishnah  therefore agrees with R. Judah; while [the view expressed in] the Baraitha  is R. Jose's. Rab Judah said in the name of Samuel; The halachah rests with R. Jose. A certain deed of gift had been attested by two brothers-in-law. Now, R. Joseph thought to declare it valid, since Rab Judah said in Samuel's name: The halachah rests with R. Jose. But Abaye said to him: How do we know that [he referred to] the ruling of R. Jose as stated in the Mishnah which permits the evidence of a brother-in-law: perhaps he meant the ruling of R. Jose in the Baraitha, which disqualifies a brother-in-law? — One cannot think so, for Samuel said:  'E.g., I and Phinehas, who are brothers and brothers-in-law (are inadmissible);'  hence others who are only brothers-in-law are admissible.  But [Abaye retorted] may it not be that Samuel, in saying, 'e.g., I and Phinehas,' meant only to illustrate the term 'brothers-in-law'?  Thereupon [R. Joseph] said to him:  Go and establish your title through those who witnessed the delivery,  in accordance with R. Eleazar.  But did not R. Abba say: Even R. Eleazar agrees that a deed bearing its own disqualification  is invalid? — Thereupon R. Joseph said to him: Go your way; they do not permit me to give you possession. R. JUDAH SAID etc. R. Tanhum said in the name of R. Tabla in the name of R. Beruna in Rab's name: The halachah rests with R. Judah. Raba said in R. Nahman's name: The halachah is not in agreement with R. Judah. Rabbah b. Bar Hana said likewise in R. Johanan's name: The halachah does not rest with R. Judah. Some refer this dictum of Rabbah b. Bar Hana to the following: R. Jose the Galilean gave the following exposition: And thou shalt come unto the Priests, the Levites, and unto the judge that shall be in those days.  Is it then conceivable that, one could go to a judge who does not exist in his lifetime? But the text refers to a judge who was formerly a relative but who subsequently ceased to be one.  [Whereon] Rabba b. Bar Hana said: The halachah rests with R. Jose the Galilean. The sons of Mar 'Ukba's father-in-law who