Halakhah for Sanhedrin 56:28

בני חמוה דמר עוקבא

'E.g., I andPhinehas, who are brothers and brothers-in-law (are inadmissible);'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' They must have married two sisters. ');">³⁸</span> henceothers who are only brothers-in-law areadmissible.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In accordance with R. Jose in the Mishnah. ');">³⁹</span> But [Abaye retorted]may it not be that Samuel, in saying, 'e.g., I and Phinehas,' meant onlyto illustrate the term'brothers-in-law'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And so the fact that they were also brothers was immaterial. Hence brothers-in-law are ineligible as witnesses, so that the deed was invalid. ');">⁴⁰</span> Thereupon [R.Joseph] said to him:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The man who had produced the contract. ');">⁴¹</span> Go and establishyour title through those who witnessed thedelivery,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the deed of gift to you, ');">⁴²</span> in accordance with R.Eleazar.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That it is the witnesses who saw the delivery of the document who establish its validity. In fact, according to R. Eleazar, a document unsigned by witnesses is also valid. Cf. Git. 3b. ');">⁴³</span> But did not R. Abba say:Even R. Eleazar agrees that a deed bearing its owndisqualification<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., which is signed by incompetent witnesses. ');">⁴⁴</span> is invalid? —Thereupon R. Joseph said to him: Go your way; they do not permit me to giveyou possession. R. JUDAH SAID etc. R. Tanhum said in the name of R. Tabla in the name ofR. Beruna in Rab's name: The <i>halachah</i> rests with R. Judah. Raba said in R.Nahman's name: The <i>halachah</i> is not in agreement with R. Judah. Rabbah b.Bar Hana said likewise in R. Johanan's name: The <i>halachah</i> does not rest withR. 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 untothe Priests, the Levites, and unto the judge that shall be in thosedays.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XVII, 9. ');">⁴⁵</span> Is it then conceivable that,one could go to a judge who does not exist in his lifetime? But the textrefers to a judge who was formerly a relative but who subsequently ceasedto be one.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., at the time the litigation is brought before him. Such a judge is eligible. ');">⁴⁶</span> [Whereon] Rabba b. BarHana said: The <i>halachah</i> rests with R. Jose the Galilean. The sons of Mar 'Ukba's father-in-law who

Sefer HaChinukh