Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 3:6

משנה: וְאֵילּוּ הֵן הַקְּרוֹבִין אָחִיו וַאֲחִי אָבִיו וַאֲחִי אִמּוֹ וּבַעַל אֲחוֹתוֹ וּבַעַל אֲחוֹת אָבִיו וּבַעַל אֲחוֹת אִמּוֹ וּבַעַל אִמּוֹ וְחָמִיו וַאֲגִיסוֹ הֵן וּבְנֵיהֶן וְחַתְנֵיהֶן וְחוֹרְגוֹ לְבַדּוֹ. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי זוֹ מִשְׁנַת רַבִּי עֲקִיבָה. אֲבָל מִשְׁנָה רִאשׁוֹנָה דוֹדוֹ וּבֶן דּוֹדוֹ. וְכָל הָרָאוּי לְיוֹרְשׁוֹ וְכָל הַקָּרוֹב לֹו בְּאוֹתָהּ שָׁעָה. הָיָה קָרוֹב וְנִתְרַחֵק הֲרֵי זֶה כָּשֵׁר. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר אֲפִילּוּ מֵתָה בִתּוֹ וְיֶשׁ לוֹ בָנִים מִמֶּנּוּ הֲרֵי זֶה קָרוֹב׃ MISHNAH: The following are the relatives:⁸⁷Since women are barred from giving formal testimony, only the males are enumerated. His brother, his father’s brother and his mother’s brother⁸⁸The father’s brother is a relative; so is the father himself. He is mentioned in some Mishnah mss., his sister’s husband, his father’s sister’s husband and his mother’s sister’s husband, his father-in-law, and his brother-in-law⁸⁹אֲגִיס is the Syriac form; the usual Babylonian is גִּיס. In Syriac the word denotes the wife’s sister’s husband. This is the meaning presumed in the Halakhah, but here it includes the wife’s brother.; these, their sons and sons-in-law, but his steps⁹⁰His wife’s son from a previous marriage. alone. Rebbi Yose said, this is Rebbi Aqiba’s teaching; but the original Mishnah was: His uncle and his uncle’s son⁹¹Quoted as relative par excellence in Leviticus.25.29">Lev. 25:29., and anybody in line to inherit from him, and any related to him at that moment⁹²Any man married to a woman who is a possible heir (as defined in Mishnah Bava batra 8:1) is barred to act as witness. At the dissolution of the marriage, by death or divorce, the relationship is terminated.. If he had been related but became unrelated, he is qualified. Rebbi Jehudah says, even if his daughter had died but he had children from him, he remains a relative⁹³Since the grandchildren are possible heirs, they are barred from being witnesses, and so is their father. This holds true even if the grandchildren all are female..

הלכה: אֵילּוּ הֵן הַקְּרוֹבִין כול׳. מִכֵּיוָן דְּתַנִּינָן אָחִיו מַה צוֹרְכָה לְמִיתְנֵי אֲחִי אָבִיו. לוֹמַר בְּנוֹ וְחַתְנוֹ שֶׁל חָתָן. HALAKHAH: “The following are the relatives,” etc. Since we have stated “his brother,” why does one have to state “his father’s brother”⁹⁴Two unexpressed principles are underlying the discussion. The first is symmetry: If A is disqualified for B, then B is disqualified for A. The second one is that for the definition of “relative”, there is no difference between male and female.
[It has to be noted that for the definition of incestuous relations, both principles are accepted by Sadducees and rejected by Pharisees. The father’s sister is biblically forbidden (Leviticus.18.12">Lev. 18:12); the brother’s daughter, for whom the husband would be the father’s brother, is biblically forbidden by Sadducees and Karaites, permitted (and recommended) by Pharisees and rabbinic Jews. The Midrash which asserts that Sarah was not Abraham’s paternal half-sister but his niece (Yevamot 10:7:8" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Yevamot.10.7.8">Yebamot 10:17 Note 210) is more an anti-Sadducee polemic than a genuine interpretation of the biblical text.]
Since the Mishnah states that sons and in-laws of disqualified relations are also disqualified, the mention of the brother implies that the nephew is also disqualified. But for the nephew, the original person is the father’s brother; why does he have to be mentioned?? To include the son-in-law’s son-in-law⁹⁵The Mishnah by implication disqualifies the cousin (or cousin’s husband); this disqualification is not implied by the disqualification of the brother (Sanhedrin.28a">Babli 28a)..

אֲחִי אָבִיו. מִכֵּיוָן דְּתַנִּינָן אֲחִי אָבִיו מַה צוֹרְכָה לְמִיתְנֵי אֲחִי אִמּוֹ. לוֹמַר בְּנוֹ וְחַתְנוֹ שֶׁל חָתָן. “His father’s brother”. Since we have stated “his father’s brother,” why does one have to state “his mother’s brother”⁹⁶In the Sanhedrin.28a">Babli, 28a, the mention of the mother’s brother is taken as proof of the second rule of Sanhedrin 3:6:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Sanhedrin.3.6.1">Note 92. The same is implied here.? To include the son-in-law’s son-in-law⁹⁷The same argument as before, to disqualify cousins from the mother’s side..

אֲחִי אִמּוֹ. מִכֵּיוָן דְּתַנִּינָן בַּעַל אֲחוֹתוֹ מַה צוֹרְכָה לְמִיתְנֵי בַּעַל אֲחוֹת אָבִיו. לוֹמַר בְּנוֹ וְחַתְנוֹ שֶׁלְּחָתָן. “His mother’s brother”. Since we have stated “his sister’s husband,” why does one have to state “his father’s sister’s husband”⁹⁸This question presupposes that any person disqualified for A also is disqualified for A’s son (Sanhedrin.28a">Babli 28a). A’s sister’s husband is the father’s sister’s husband for A’s son.? To include the son-in-law’s son-in-law⁹⁷The same argument as before, to disqualify cousins from the mother’s side..

בַּעַל אֲחוֹת אָבִיו. מִכֵּיוָן דְּתַנִּינָן בַּעַל אֲחוֹת אָבִיו. מַה צוֹרְכָה לְמִיתְנֵי בַּעַל אֲחוֹת אִמּוֹ. לוֹמַר בְּנוֹ וְחַתְנוֹ שֶׁלְּחָתָן. “His father’s sister’s husband”. Since we have stated “his father’s sister’s husband,” why does one have to state “his mother’s sister’s husband”? To include the son-in-law’s son-in-law⁹⁹This probably is a scribal error, copied from the preceding paragraph. The only reasonable answer would be: to show that in matters of disqualification as witnesses, relations by females are the equivalent of relations by males..

בַּעַל אֲחוֹת אִמּוֹ. וְהָתַנִּינָן חוֹרְגוֹ לְבַדּוֹ. רַב אָמַר. אִם חֲתַן חֲמוֹתוֹ אָסוּר בַּעַל חוֹרְגָתוֹ לֹא כָּל־שֶׁכֵּן. תִּיפְתָּר שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהּ בָנִים וַחֲתָנִים מִמֶּנּוּ. “His mother’s sister’s husband”. But did we not state: “his stepson alone”¹⁰⁰Excluding the stepson’s wife and his descendants and in-laws.? Rav said, if his mother-in-law’s son-in-law¹⁰¹Husband of his father-in-law’s stepdaughter. is forbidden, then certainly his stepdaughter’s husband¹⁰²Since it was established that females be treated like males in this matter, the status of the mother-in-law is that of the father-in-law, and her children and children-in-law also are disqualified. Let A be the person in question, W his wife, F, M, his father and mother, D the mother-in-law’s daughter from another man, and H the daughter’s husband. The relationship between A and H can be given by a diagram:
<figure_pg125_01>
On the other hand, the relationship between a man and his stepdaughter’s husband can be described by
<figure_pg125_02>
This graph clearly is a subgraph of the preceding (up to labelling, replacing F,M by A,W). Therefore, if the first graph describes a disqualifying relationship, a fortiori the second also describes one.. Explain it that she has sons and sons-in-law from him¹⁰³Since the preceding argument leads to a result contradicting the Mishnah, the premiss of the argument is shown to be false. The only siblings of a person’s wife disqualified as witnesses are her full or paternal siblings. “She” in this sentence is the mother-in-law..

אֲגִיסוֹ. אִית תַּנָּיֵי תַנֵּי. יֵשׁ לוֹ בָנִים וַחֲתָנִים. וְאִית תַּנָּיֵי תַנֵּי. אֵין לֹו בָנִים וַחֲתָנִים. מָאן דָּמַר יֵשׁ לוֹ בָנִים וַחֲתָנִים. מִמֶּנָּהּ. וּמָאן דָּמַר אֵין לֹו בָנִים וַחֲתָנִים. מִמָּקוֹם אַחֵר. “His brother-in-law”. Some Tannaïm state: Including sons and sons-in-law; but some Tannaïm state: Excluding sons and sons-in-law. He who said, including sons and sons-in law, from her¹⁰⁴His wife’s sister.. But he who said, excluding sons and sons-in law, from another family¹⁰⁵Another wife. In the Sanhedrin.28b">Babli, 28b, there is a dispute whether “he alone” refers to the stepson or any brother-in-law..

רַב נְפַק לְמיתרי משכין לְרִבִּי חִייָה רַבָּה. עֲבַר בְּחַד אֲתַר וְאַשְׁכַּח רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן יְתִיב וּמַקְשֵׁי. תַּנִּינָן. חוֹרְגוֹ לְבַדּוֹ. אֵשֶׁת חוֹרְגוֹ מָהוּ. בַּעַל חוֹרְגָתוֹ מָהוּ. אִשָּׁה כְבַעֲלָהּ וּבַעַל כְּאִשְׁתּוֹ. וְקָמַת אֵשֶׁת חוֹרְגוֹ כְחוֹרְגוֹ וְהַבַּעַל כְּאִשָּׂה. Rav went to sell hides¹⁰⁶Text and meaning are in doubt. One might read מֵיתְרֵי מְשָׁכִין “to span hides”; this does not make much sense. Nimmuqe Yosef(Commentary to Alfasi, 6b in the Wilna ed.) reads נְפַק לְמַזְבַּן מַשְׁכּוֹן “went to sell a pledge”. This agrees with the following possessive, לר׳ חייה. The parallel source in the Sanhedrin.28">Babli, 28a/b reads: רב איקלע למזבן גוילי “Rav happened to be selling parchment.” for the elder Rebbi Ḥiyya. He passed by a place where he found Rebbi Joḥanan sitting and asking: We have stated, “his stepson alone.” What is the situation of his stepson’s wife, his stepdaughter’s husband? A woman is like her husband and the husband is like his wife¹⁰⁷The Sanhedrin.28b">Babli 28b treats the two statements as different; one does not necessarily imply the other.. Therefore, the situation of his stepson’s wife is that of his stepson, and the husband is like his wife¹⁰⁸A person is disqualified from being a witness for or against his stepson’s wife or stepdaughter’s husband, but not for or against the stepchild’s children or children-in-law..

רַב חִסְדָּא בָעֵי. דּוֹר שְׁלִישִׁי מָהוּ שֶׁיְּהֵא מוּתָּר בְּאֵשֶׁת רִאשׁוֹן. מֹשֶׁה מָהוּ שֶׁיְּהֵא מוּתָּר בְּאֵשֶׁת פִּינְחָס. רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר. מְקַבְּלִין דּוֹר שֵׁינִי וְדוֹר שְׁלִישִׁי מִדּוֹחַק. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. אֲפִילוּ מֵרֵיוַח. Rav Ḥisda asked: If the third generation permitted the first generation’s wife¹⁰⁹The brother’s children are disqualified by the Mishnah. What about the grand-children?? Is Phineas’s wife permitted to Moses¹¹⁰The question is formulated as one of permitted marriages. This does not fit the context, since that problem was discussed in Yevamot 2:4:2-10" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Yevamot.2.4.2-10">Yebamot 2:4. With all commentators one has to read the question whether Moses be qualified to testify for the wife of Phineas, his brother’s grandson.? Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, one accepts the second and third generations with difficulty¹¹¹A court will accept testimony from persons one generation removed from the Mishnaic disqualifications only if no other witnesses are available.. Rebbi Joḥanan said, even with ease¹¹²Any testimony not disqualified by the Mishnah is qualified..

כְּהָדָא אֲגִיסֵיהּ דְּרַב הוּנָא הֲוָה לֵיהּ דִּין עִם חַד בַּר נַשׁ. אָמַר. כָּל־מַה דְּרַב הוּנָא אָמַר אֲנָא מְקַבֵּל עָלַי. שָׁמַע רַב הוּנָא וְאָמַר כְּהָדֵין. יוֹדַעְנִי כְּשֵׁם שֶׁאָֽמְרוּ מִלְּמַעֲלָן כָּךְ אָֽמְרוּ מִלְּמַטָּן. רַב יִרְמְיָה בְשֵׁם רַב. הֲלָכָה כְרִבִּי יוּדָה. ¹¹³This refers to the last part of the Mishnah, the statement of R. Jehudah. As the following: A brother-in-law¹¹⁴The husband of one of Rav Huna’s sisters and one of the sisters had died. He had been a relative but now became unrelated. of Rav Huna’s had a case with some person. He said, I am accepting anything which Rav Huna will decide¹¹⁵Since Rav Huna was no longer a relative, he was qualified to be a judge.. Rav Huna heard it and said, this is it¹¹⁶The statement of the Mishnah.. I know that just as they said for the preceding generations, so it is for the following¹¹⁷The Mishnah refers to the relation between a person and his son-in-law, two different generations. Since R. Jehudah states that if there be grandchildren, the son-in-law remains related, it follows that the anonymous Tanna holds that in all cases the son-in-law becomes unrelated at the moment his marriage is dissolved by death or divorce.. Rav Jehudah in the name of Rav: Practice follows Rebbi Jehudah¹¹⁸This is also quoted in the Sanhedrin.28b">Babli, 28b, as Rav’s opinion. The school of Samuel, represented by Rav Nahman, holds that practice does not follow R. Jehudah. Rav Nahman’s rulings have the status of Supreme Court decisions in Babylonia..