Yevamot 115b — the Talmud in English

And we saw them immediately

as soon as they brought them up,

and they said

also

distinctive signs,

distinctive,

that it was not upon them

that we relied on mere recognition,

we relied,

because we were concerned that perhaps they were others, since the water changes the form of the face and it is not so recognizable [the method of Rashi] ,

but upon signs

we relied, for they clearly recognized them well, and there is no place here to be concerned that they spoke on the basis of conjecture .

And the question concerning one witness in wartime remains unresolved.

There was an incident involving

a certain man who deposited sesame with his fellow

in the presence of witnesses.

He said to him

the depositor, after some time:

Give me my sesame.

He said to him

the bailee:

You took it!

I already returned it to you.

The depositor said to him: I have a distinctive sign,

and they were so and so,

there were so and so many se’a.

And they were placed in a barrel,

and they are still with you in the barrel; go and inspect it, and you will find it according to my reckoning.

He said to him: You took yours. And these are others

and they are mine.

Rav Hisda thought to say:

since there are witnesses to the deposit, as well as a sign that they are his, then

this is the same as the two Torah scholars

above, about whom we say that they are trusted to permit their wives to remarry through witnesses and signs,

and we do not say: These

Torah scholars

went away into the world, and these

dead men who were brought up from the water

are others,

and it happened that they had similar signs.

The same is true here: we need not be concerned that perhaps they are others, and it happened that they possess those same signs.

Rava said to him: Are they comparable

here and there?

There,

in the case of the two Torah scholars,

they stated signs,

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

Here,

with

sesame,

what the depositor said to the bailee is not considered a sign. For

what sign do they have ?

And if you say, what is

that which he said, “they were so and so”

[there were so and so many se’a of sesame], is this not to be considered a sign? For

perhaps the reckoning

can be said to have

occurred by chance,

by coincidence, like this reckoning.

Mar Keshisha bar Rav Hisda said to Rav Ashi: And are we concerned that perhaps he cleared out

the first ones and these are others, when the sign of the first ones is before us?

But we learned: One who finds a vessel with

the letter

kuf

written upon it—we say that all the produce found in it is

a sacrifice

of consecrated property.

Or, if he finds the letter

mem

written upon it, it is

tithe.

If

dalet

is written upon it, it is

demu’a,

teruma and non-sacred produce that became mixed, and it may be eaten only by a kohen.

The letter

tet

—it is

tevel.

The letter

tav

—it is

teruma.

Since

at the time of danger,

when they decreed that the mitzvot should not be observed,

they would write a tav in place of teruma.

And it is evident that we do not say: perhaps they removed that produce upon which he placed this letter in writing, and these are others.

Ravina said to Rav Ashi: And

is it so that

we are not concerned that perhaps he cleared out

the first ones and these are others?

But

did he not state at the end: Rabbi Yosei says: Even if he found an old barrel

and

teruma was written upon it, these are non-sacred produce.

I say: Last year

at first

it was full of teruma, and

in another year he

cleared it out.

Evidently Rabbi Yosei is concerned that perhaps he cleared it out, since it is customary that in another year one places something else in it; and it stands to reason that the Rabbis do not disagree with him concerning this reasoning,

but everyone is concerned that perhaps he cleared it out.

And here they disagree about this: One

the first tanna

holds: If indeed he cleared it out, he would have wiped it off

he would have wiped and scraped off the letter from the pitch, and therefore we are not concerned that he cleared it out.

And the other

Rabbi Yosei holds:

Perhaps he became forgetful, he became forgetful,

he forgot to erase the sign.

Alternatively, for preservation

he left it, for the saving of the produce inside it; he placed this letter upon it and did not scrape it off, so that people would distinguish them.

There was an incident involving

Isaac Resh Galuta

the son of Rav Bibi’s sister, who

was going from

his city,

Kortoba, to Spain, and died.

And he died in Spain.

They sent from there,

from Spain, a messenger to Kortoba to announce that a man whose name was

Isaac Resh Galuta, the son of Rav Bibi’s sister, was going, was traveling, from Kortoba to Spain, and died.

But the witnesses who testified that he arrived with them in Spain did not know that this was the man whose name it was [and neither did the people of Spain], nor did they recognize that this was the same Isaac of Kortoba, who had departed and had not returned.

And the question was:

Who—is it the case that we are concerned about two Isaacs called “

Resh Galuta,” and this Isaac who died is another man, whereas Isaac Resh Galuta who departed from here went somewhere else and is still alive?

Or not

are we concerned about this, and do we attribute that Isaac called Resh Galuta who lived in Kortoba is the one who died, since two people with that name had not been established in one city?

Abaye said: We are concerned.

Because caravans were commonly present, and we hold in tractate Gittin that in a place where caravans are commonly present, even though two Josephs son of Simeon had not been established, we are concerned about two Josephs son of Simeon. Therefore, the entire world must be examined, in case there is another Isaac Resh Galuta at the end of the world.

Rava said,

since the witnesses who saw him die testified that he was the same one who departed with them from Kortoba to Spain,

we are not concerned,

since two Isaacs Resh Galuta had not been established in Kortoba. And we say: what is found here was here, and we do not attribute it to another person who is unknown.

And Abaye brings proof for his words:

Abaye said: From where do I say it

that we are concerned about two Josephs son of Simeon?

For there was that document of divorce that was found in Nehardea

and the woman was standing before us and claiming the document of divorce.

And it was written

in the document of divorce:

“In the district of Kelonia, the city,”

the name of a city in the land of Nehardea,

I

a free man from paying the tax,

Androlinai of Nehardea, have released and dismissed this certain woman, my wife,”

which is the language of divorcing a woman;

and Samuel’s father sent it before Rabbi Judah the Prince

to ask whether we are concerned about another Androlinai who wrote a document of divorce, or not.

And Rabbi Judah the Prince sent to him

:

Let

the entire land of

Nehardea be examined!

Evidently we do not say: He was found in Kelonia, and he was from there; therefore only Kelonia itself need be examined.

And Rava rejects the proof:

And Rava said:

that

if indeed

the entire Nehardea requires examination,

the entire world should have been examined

in case another Androlinai had been in Nehardea and had gone away.

Rather, it was because of the honor of Samuel’s father that he sent this,

so as not to establish him as mistaken and asking about something that does not require asking. In truth, only Kelonia itself requires examination.

And Rava brings proof for his words:

Rava said: From where do I say it

that we are not concerned about two Isaacs,

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

And Rava bar Avuha collected money through them!

Rava bar Avuha obligated the defendant against whom the holder of the document produced his document to repay his debt. And he did not accept his claim that he owed nothing to him, but rather to another person who also bore this name.

And the names Havi son of Nanai and Nanai son of Havi are very common in Mehoza,

and nevertheless the lender collected through them when he produced a promissory note against others; and we are not concerned that perhaps it belonged to another person. Necessarily, this is because we say: since they were found in his possession, they were his from the outset.

And since regarding money, even though two people with the same name had been established, we are not concerned that perhaps the document belonged to another, the same is true regarding a prohibition: when two had not been established, at any rate we are not concerned.

But Abaye rejects the proof:

And Abaye

said: