Yevamot 115b (קטו:) — the Talmud in English

And we saw them immediately

as soon as they brought them up,

and they also said

that there were

distinctive identifying features

that were conclusive,

and that it was not on the basis of them

of mere visual recognition

that we relied,

because we are concerned that perhaps they were other people, since water alters the form of the face and it is not so clearly recognizable [the method of Rashi] ,

but on the identifying features

we relied, since they recognized them clearly, and there is no reason here to suspect that they spoke on the basis of an imprecise impression .

And the question concerning one witness in wartime remains unresolved.

An incident involving

a certain man who deposited sesame with his fellow

in the presence of witnesses.

The depositor said

to him after some time:

Give me the sesame.

The bailee said

to him:

You took it!

I already returned it to you.

The depositor said to him: I have a distinctive identifying feature,

and there were such-and-such a quantity,

there were such-and-such a number of se’a.

And they were placed in a barrel,

and they are still with you in the barrel. Go and examine it, and you will find that the amount corresponds to my reckoning.

He said to him: You took yours. And these are other ones,

and they are mine.

Rav Hisda thought to say

that since there were witnesses to the deposit, as well as an identifying feature indicating that they belonged to him,

this is identical to the case of the two Torah scholars

mentioned above, concerning whom we say that they are trusted to permit their wives to remarry on the basis of witnesses and identifying features,

and we do not say: These

Torah scholars

went out into the world, and these

bodies brought up from the water

are other ones,

and it happened that they had similar identifying features.

The same applies here: We need not be concerned that perhaps they are others, and it merely happened that they possess those same identifying features.

Rava said to him: Are

the cases here and there comparable?

There,

in the case of the two Torah scholars,

they said identifying features,

and it was known that there was no reason to suspect falsehood.

Here,

in the case of

sesame,

what the depositor told the bailee is not considered an identifying feature.

For what identifying feature do they have?

And if you say that the relevant feature is

what he said, “there were such-and-such a quantity,”

there were such-and-such a number of se’a of sesame—this cannot be considered an identifying feature, because

one might say that the calculation

can be explained as having

happened by chance,

that is, it happened to be the same amount as this reckoning.

Mar Kashisha son of Rav Hisda said to Rav Ashi: Do we in fact suspect that we moved aside the first ones

and that these are other ones, when the identifying feature of the first ones is before us?

But we learned: If one found a vessel with

a letter

kuf

written on it, we say that all the produce found in it is

an offering

consecrated to the Temple.

Or, if one found the letter

mem written on it,

it is

ma’aser.

If the letter

dalet was written on it,

it is

demai,

produce in which teruma and non-sacred produce have become mixed, and which may be eaten only by a kohen.

The letter

tet

means that it is

tevel.

The letter

tav

means that it is

teruma.

Since

in a time of danger,

when they decreed that the mitzvot were not to be observed,

they would write a tav in place of the word teruma.

This proves that we do not say: Perhaps they moved aside the produce on which this letter had been written, and these are other ones.

Ravina said to Rav Ashi: And

if

we do not suspect that perhaps they moved aside the first ones

and that these are other ones,

but

did he not state the latter clause: Rabbi Yosei says: Even if one found an old barrel

with

the word teruma written on it, these are non-sacred produce.

For I say: Last year

originally

it was full of teruma, and

in another year

he moved it aside.

Evidently, Rabbi Yosei is concerned that perhaps they moved it aside, since it is customary that in another year one places something else in it; and it stands to reason that the Sages do not disagree with him concerning this reasoning.

Rather, everyone is concerned that perhaps they moved it aside.

And here they disagree about this:

The first tanna

holds: If it is so that he moved it aside, he would certainly have scraped it off

he would have wiped away and scraped the letter from the pitch, and therefore we do not suspect that he moved it aside.

But the other one,

Rabbi Yosei, holds:

Perhaps he simply forgot,

and forgot to erase the identifying mark.

Alternatively, he left it for protection

to protect the produce inside it: He placed this letter on it and did not scrape it off, so that people would distinguish it from other produce.

An incident involving

Yitzhak, the Exilarch

son of the sister of Rav Bibi, who

was traveling from

his city,

Kurtava, to Aspamia, and died.

He died in Aspamia.

They sent from there,

from Aspamia, a messenger to Kurtava to announce that a certain man named

Yitzhak, the Exilarch, son of the sister of Rav Bibi, was traveling—had traveled—from Kurtava to Aspamia, and died.

But the witnesses who testified that he had arrived with them in Aspamia, and knew that this was his name [and the people of Aspamia as well], did not recognize him as being that same Yitzhak from Kurtava who had departed and had not returned.

And the question was:

Whether, “do we suspect

that there were two people named “the Exilarch,” and this Yitzhak who died was another man, while Yitzhak the Exilarch who left here went elsewhere and is still alive,

or not

do we suspect this, and do we assume that Yitzhak called the Exilarch who lived in Kurtava was the one who died, since two people with that name had not been established as living in one city.

Abaye said: We are concerned.

Since caravans were common, and we maintain in tractate Gittin that in a place where caravans are common, even if two people named Yosef ben Shimon had not been established there, one is concerned that there may be two Yosef ben Shimons. Therefore, the entire world must be checked to see whether there is another Yitzhak the Exilarch somewhere at the ends of the world.

Rava said:

Since the witnesses who saw him die testified that he was the same person who had left with them from Kurtava for Aspamia,

we are not concerned

since two Yitzhaks the Exilarchs had not been established in Kurtava. And we say: What is found here was here; we do not attribute it to another unknown person.

And Abaye brings proof for his position:

Abaye said: From where do I say

that we are concerned about two Yosef ben Shimons?

From that bill of divorce that was found in Nehardea,

with the woman standing before us and claiming the bill of divorce.

And it was written

in the bill of divorce:

“In the district of Kelonia, the city,”

the name of a city in the land of Nehardea ,

“I,

who am free from paying the tax,

Androlinai of Nehardea, have released and divorced so-and-so, my wife,”

which is the language used for divorcing a woman;

and the father of Shmuel sent it before Rabbi Yehuda Nesia

to ask whether we are concerned that another Androlinai wrote the bill of divorce or not.

And Rabbi Yehuda Nesia sent him

the following reply:

Let

the entire land of

Nehardea be checked!

Evidently, we do not say that he was found in Kelonia and was from there, so that only Kelonia itself would require checking.

Rava rejects this proof:

And Rava said:

If

it were so

that all of Nehardea required checking,

the entire world should have to be checked

in case another Androlinai had been in Nehardea and had left it .

Rather, it was because of the honor of the father of Shmuel that he sent this reply,

so as not to present him as one who had erred and asked about something that did not require investigation. In fact, only Kelonia itself requires checking.

And Rava brings proof for his position:

Rava said: From where do I say

that we are not concerned about two Yitzhaks,

from those two promissory notes that emerged in Mehoza, in which the names of the lenders were written with names common there, such as Havi son of Nanai and Nanai son of Havi.

And Rava son of Avuha collected money on the basis of them!

Rava son of Avuha obligated the defendant against whom the holder of the document produced his promissory note to repay his debt. He did not accept his claim that he owed the debt not to him, but to another person who also bore this name.

And the names Havi son of Nanai and Nanai son of Havi were exceedingly common in Mehoza,

and nevertheless the lender collected on the basis of them when he produced a promissory note against others. We are not concerned that it may have belonged to another person; necessarily, this is because we say: Since they were found in his possession, they had belonged to him from the outset.

And since with regard to monetary matters, even when two people with the same name had been established, we are not concerned that the document belonged to someone else, the same applies with regard to a prohibition: When two people had not been established, certainly we are not concerned.

But Abaye rejects the proof:

And Abaye

said: