Yevamot 120b — the Talmud in English

And here, with regard to a mole,

is it considered like

a distinctive identifying mark—

they disagree.

For regarding a distinctive identifying mark, everyone agrees that one may rely upon it even in matters prohibited by Torah law.

One Master holds:

a mole is

a distinctive identifying mark.

.

And one Master holds:

a mole

is not a distinctive identifying mark.

.

And the Gemara raises an objection:

And according to that version

above,

for Rava said

according to it, that

identifying marks are by Torah law,

let there be a difficulty:

but it teaches

in our Mishna that testimony is not given concerning the dead man

even though there are identifying marks on his body and on his belongings!

And the Gemara answers that it is speaking of ordinary identifying marks, found among many people.

For example, the identifying mark on

his body—

that he is tall or short,

that he is tall or low.

But concerning

his belongings,

the garments of the dead man, which have distinctive identifying marks, it is also impossible to rely upon them, since

we are concerned that they may have been lent.

For we must be concerned that indeed they are that person's garments, but he is not the dead man, because it is possible that he lent them to another person, and that person died wearing his borrowed garments.

And the Gemara asks:

And if we are concerned that they may have been lent—

a donkey,

which we hold is returned to its owner

by the identifying marks of the saddle

upon it—

how do we return it?

But it is possible that this saddle was borrowed, and the donkey belongs to another person!

And we answer:

people do not borrow a saddle,

it is not the practice of donkey owners to borrow a saddle,

for it rubs

and injures

it,

the saddle of another donkey,

against the donkey.

But it is still necessary to raise an objection: if we are concerned that it may have been lent, how do we return the bill of divorce when

they found it tied to a pouch, a purse, and a ring?

How do we return it,

but it is possible that they were lent, and another person tied his bill of divorce to them or placed it inside them?

And we answer:

a ring

that has a seal, people do not lend it. For

a person is concerned

with

forgery,

lest he seal in his name with the ring, go to his house, and remove all his property from there.

A pouch and a purse—

people regard them as lucky

among

people,

as they are a good omen for them,

and they do not lend them.

They do not lend them.

And if you wish, say:

the belongings mentioned in the Mishna, concerning which testimony is not given on the basis of the identifying marks of his garments, are

white and red.

For it is impossible to give testimony on the basis of the identifying marks of the garments when the mark is that they are white or black, or red, since this is an identifying mark common in the garments of many people.

We learned in the Mishna:

And even if they saw him mutilated—

testimony is not given concerning him that he has died.

And the Gemara infers:

Does this mean that a mutilated person can live?

And we raise a contradiction

from what we learned in tractate Oholot [6:V]:

A person does not impart impurity

of a corpse

until his soul departs.

Even if

he was

mutilated, and even if

he was

in the throes of death,

he does not impart impurity until he actually dies.

And the Gemara infers:

He does not impart impurity,

because his soul has not yet departed;

but he does not live!

For if he continues to live, it is obvious that he does not impart impurity.

Abaye said: It is not difficult:

This

our Mishna, according to the words of

Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar,

is.

This

the Mishna in tractate Oholot,

the Rabbis

hold.

For it was taught: Testimony is given concerning a mutilated person,

that he has died.

But testimony is not given concerning one crucified.

Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: Even concerning a mutilated person testimony is not given, because he can cauterize

to heal his wounds by means of burning with fire, as will be explained below,

and live.

And the Gemara asks:

And can you establish

our Mishna

according to Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar?

But it teaches in the latter clause,

later in the chapter:

There was an incident in Asia, concerning one whom they lowered into the sea, but they did not succeed,

for there emerged from the water

only his leg.

His entire body disappeared in the water.

And the Sages said:

There is concern that perhaps this man did not drown in the water, but emerged elsewhere.

And what we must consider is only whether he can continue to live without a leg.

Therefore, if his leg was cut off

from the knee [

from the knee]

and above,

he can no longer live, and therefore—

his wife may marry

.

But if his leg was cut off

from the knee and below—

his wife may not marry,

lest he be alive!

Whereas according to Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, he can recover from his wound.

And we answer:

Water is different,

for one who falls into it with his leg cut off dies, since the nature of water is

that it intensifies

and increases the pain of the

wound.

And the Gemara raises an objection: how is it possible that a mutilated person can live?

For Rabba bar bar Hana said: I myself saw that Ishmaelite herdsman,

an Ishmaelite shepherd,

who took a sword and mutilated his camel,

and it died immediately,

and I did not finish its braying!

For it did not manage to complete the sound of its braying before it died immediately!

Abaye said: That

camel

was emaciated,

and therefore it died immediately, and this is not proof concerning a healthy one.

Rava said: He mutilated it with a glowing knife,

heated with fire,

and everyone agrees

that this is the position of our Mishna, for the heat of the cauterization can heal the wound.

We learned in the Mishna:

And

even if

an animal is eating him,

testimony is not given concerning him.

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel: They taught

that testimony is not given concerning him

only

when the animal is eating him

from a place from which his soul does not depart.

But

if the animal ate him

from a place from which his soul departs—

testimony is given

concerning him.

And Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel:

If

a person cut through

a man

both

of the identifying organs, the windpipe and the esophagus,

or most of both, and he fled,

the man who was cut—

testimony is given

concerning him that he is not alive.

And we raise an objection:

Is that so? For Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel: If he cut through both or most of both, and the victim gestured and said, “Write a bill of divorce for my wife”—

these shall write and give it

to his wife as a bill of divorce! And it is proven that he remains alive.

And we answer: Indeed,

he is alive

now for a short period of time, during which it is possible to write a bill of divorce for his wife,

but in the end he will die

within a short time.

And we raise an objection:

But from now,

since the one who was cut is certainly destined to die from his cutting,

shall the one who caused it be exiled on his account,

the one whose knife accidentally fell upon his fellow's neck, and the one who was cut died later!

But it was taught: If he cut through both or most of both—

he is not exiled,

even if the one who was cut died afterward, because perhaps he died on account of another matter!

And we answer:

This was stated concerning it; Rav Hoshaya said: We are concerned that perhaps the wind confused him,

and as a result he died; therefore, even though it is certain that he will die as a result of the cutting, and it is possible to give testimony to his wife concerning his death, this is not proof that it alone caused his death, and therefore, with regard to exile, he is exempt.