Yevamot 230:1

וחזינהו לאלתר וקאמרי סימנין דלאו עלייהו סמכינן אלא אסימנים

and we saw then, immediately [afterwards]',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' After their emerging from the water (cf. Tosaf. s.v. [H], a.l.). ');">¹</span> and they also mention [his identification] marks. so that we do not rely upon them<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On their evidence of the men's death. ');">²</span> but on the marks.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' (If which the judges were well aware independently of the woman's evidence. ');">³</span>

ההוא גברא דאפקיד שומשמי גבי חבריה אמר ליה הב לי שומשמי אמר ליה שקילתינהו והא כן וכן הויין ובחביתא רמיין א"ל דידך שקלתינהו והני אחריני נינהו

A man once deposited some sesame with another, [and when in due course] he asked him, 'Return to me my sesame, the other replied. 'You have already taken it'. 'But, surely'. [the depositor remonstrated, 'the quantity] was such and such and it is [in fact still] lying [intact] in your jar'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which should prove that the sesame had not been returned to its owner. ');">⁴</span> 'Yours', the other replied. 'you have taken back and this is different'. R. Hisda at first intended to give his decision [that the law in this case is] the same as that of the two learned men,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whose wives Rabbi permitted to marry on the assumption that the discovered bodies were theirs. ');">⁵</span> where we do not assume that those have gone elsewhere and these are others.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who have the same identification marks. Similarly with the sesame in the jar, since it is of the same quantity as that of the deposited sesame it should be assumed to belong to the depositor and should, therefore, be returned to him. ');">⁶</span>

סבר רב חסדא למימר היינו שני תלמידי חכמים ולא אמרינן הנך אזלו לעלמא והני אחריני נינהו

Raba, however, said to him: Are [the two cases] alike? There, the identification marks were given; but here, what identification marks can sesame have! And in regard to [the depositor's] statement [that their quantity] was such and such, it might be said that the similarity of quantities is a mere coincidence. Said Mar Kashisha b. R. Hisda to R. Ashi: Do we ever [in such circumstances]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When an identification mark exists, such as a letter on a cask or, as in the case of the sesame, the identity of quantities. ');">⁷</span> take into consideration the possibility that [the contents of a vessel] may have been removed?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And replaced by similar contents. ');">⁸</span>

אמר ליה רבא מי דמי התם קאמרי סימנים הכא שומשמי מאי סימנא אית להו ודקאמר כן וכן הויין אימר חושבנא איתרמי

Surely we learned: If a man found a vessel on which was inscribed a Kof it is korban;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'sacrifice', i.e., consecrated. ');">⁹</span> if a Mem, it is ma'aser;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Tithe. ');">¹⁰</span> if a Daleth it is demu'a;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A 'mixture' of terumah and unconsecrated produce. Others read, [H] demai, produce concerning which it is uncertain whether it had been tithed. ');">¹¹</span>

א"ל מר קשישא בר רב חסדא לרב אשי ומי חיישינן שמא פינן והתנן מצא כלי וכתוב עליו קו"ף קרבן מ"ם מעשר דל"ת דמוע טי"ת טבל תי"ו תרומה שבשעת הסכנה היו כותבין תי"ו תחת תרומה

if a Teth, it is <i>Tebel</i>;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. Produce of. which it is certain that the priestly and Levitical dues have not been given for it. ');">¹²</span> and if a Taw, It is <i>terumah</i>;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. ');">¹³</span> for in the period of danger<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' During the Hadrianic persecutions that followed the Bar Kokeba revolt when the practice of Jewish laws was forbidden (cf supra p. 754. n. 9). ');">¹⁴</span>

א"ל רבינא לרב אשי ולא חיישינן שמא פינן אימא סיפא ר' יוסי אומר אפילו מצא חבית וכתוב עליה תרומה הרי אלו חולין שאני אומר אשתקד הוה מלא תרומה ופינה

they used to write a Taw for <i>terumah</i>!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' M.Sh IV, 11. This proves that a mark is regarded as sufficient proof that the original contents were not removed and replaced by others! ');">¹⁵</span> — Said Rabina to R. Ashi: Do we not [in such circumstances]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' v. supra note 1. ');">¹⁶</span> heed the possibility that [the contents of a vessel] may have been removed? Read, then, the final clause: R. Jose said, Even if a man found a jar on which '<i>terumah</i>' was inscribed [the contents] are nevertheless regarded as unconsecrated, for it is assumed<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since most of the world's produce is unconsecrated. ');">¹⁷</span>

אלא דכולי עלמא חיישינן שמא פינן והכא בהא קמיפלגי מר סבר אם איתא דפינהו מיכפר הוה כפר ואידך אימר אישתלויי אישתלי אי נמי לפנחיא שבקיה:

that though it was in the previous year full of <i>terumah</i> it has subsequently been emptied!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And replaced by unconsecrated produce Much more so when a single letter only appears on the jar! V. M.Sh., loc. cit. ');">¹⁸</span> But the fact is, all agree that the possibility of [the contents] having been removed must be taken into consideration. Here, however, they differ only on the following principle: One Master is of the opinion that had the owner removed [the contents from the jar] he would undoubtedly have wiped [the mark] off, while the other [maintains that] it might be assumed that he may have forgotten [to remove the mark] or he may also intentionally have left it as a safeguard.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H[ (cf. Pers. panah) 'protection'. People who might perhaps have no scruples about clandestinely consuming other peoples produce would nevertheless be afraid of meddling with sacred commodities. ');">¹⁹</span> Resh Galutha Isaac,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Term denotes elsewhere 'Exilarch'; here it is a proper name. V. Obermeyer, p. 183, n.l.]. ');">²⁰</span>

יצחק ריש גלותא בר אחתיה דרב ביבי הוה קאזיל מקורטבא לאספמיא ושכיב שלחו מהתם יצחק ריש גלותא בר אחתיה דרב ביבי הוה קאזיל מקורטבא לאספמיא ושכיב מי חיישינן לתרי יצחק או לא אביי אמר חיישינן רבא אמר לא חיישינן

a son of R. Bebai's sister, once went from Cordova to Spain<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H]. So Golds. against Rappaport in [H] p. 156ff. Cordova at that time, as during the Moorish reign and other periods of spanish history, may have formed an independent state. [Obermeyer p. 183 identifies the former with Kurdafad near Ktesifon on the left bank of tigris, and the latter with Apamea, a frontier town of Babylon on on the right bank of the Tigris]. ');">²¹</span> and died there. A message was sent from there [in the following terms]. 'Resh Galutha Isaac, a son of R. Bebai's sister, went from Cordova to Spain and died there. [The question thus arose] whether [the possibility that there might have been] two [men of the name of] Isaac is to be taken into consideration<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even when it was not definitely known that there were two such persons in the same place. ');">²²</span> or not? — Abaye said: It is to be taken into consideration:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even when it was not definitely known that there were two such persons in the same place. ');">²²</span>

אמר אביי מנא אמינא לה דההוא גיטא דאשתכח בנהרדעא וכתיב בצד קלוניא מתא אנא אנדרולינאי נהרדעא פטרית ותרכית ית פלונית אנתתי ושלחה אבוה דשמואל לקמיה דרבי יהודה נשיאה ושלח ליה תיבדק נהרדעא כולה

but Raba said: It is not to be taken into consideration.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Unless it was known that two such persons lived there. (Cf. infra 116a). ');">²³</span> Said Abaye: How<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'whence'. ');">²⁴</span> do I arrive at my assertion? — Because in<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. BaH. ');">²⁵</span>

ורבא אמר אם איתא יבדק כל העולם מיבעי ליה אלא משום כבודו דאבוה דשמואל הוא דשלח הכי

a letter of divorce that was once found in Nehardea it was written, 'Near the town of Kolonia,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Me'iri: By side of the town Nehardea, which had been declared a free (Roman) colony and exempt from taxation, cf. A.Z., Sonc. ed. p. 50, n. 5.]. ');">²⁶</span> I, David son of Nehilais,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So Rosh and [H]. Cur. edd., 'Androlinai'. ');">²⁷</span> a Nehardean, released and divorced my wife So-and-so', and when Samuel's father sent it to R. Judah Nesiah<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To decide whether the document may be given to the woman who claimed it as a valid one. [The reference must be to R. Judah I the prince, since the father of Samuel was no longer alive during the patriarchate of of R. Judah II (v. Obermeyer, p. 261, n. 4)]. ');">²⁸</span>

אמר רבא מנא אמינא לה דהנהו תרי שטרי דנפקי במחוזא וכתיב בהו חבי בר ננאי וננאי בר חבי ואגבי בהו רבא בר אבוה זוזי והא חבי בר ננאי וננאי בר חבי במחוזא שכיחי טובא ואביי

the latter replied: 'Let all Nehardea be searched'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To ascertain whether there is no other person of the same name in that town. This obviously proves the soundness of Abaye's ruling. ');">²⁹</span> Raba, however, said: If that were so<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As Abaye ruled. ');">³⁰</span> he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Judah Nesi'ah. ');">³¹</span> should [have ordered] the whole world to be searched!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Any Nehardean of that name might have left Nehardea for another town after giving the letter of divorce in question. ');">³²</span> The truth is that it was only out of respect for Samuel's father<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That he might not be chagrined by hearing that his enquiry was really futile and that there was in fact nothing for him to do but to accept the document as valid. ');">³³</span> that he sent that message. Raba said: How<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'whence'. ');">³⁴</span> do I arrive at my assertion? Because in two notes of indebtedness that were once produced in court at Mahuza [the names of the parties] were written as Habi son of Nanai and Nanai son of Habi. and Rabbah<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So BaH.Cur. edd., 'Raba'. ');">³⁵</span> b. Abbuha ordered the collection of the debts on these bills. But, surely, there are many [men bearing the names of] Habi son of Nanai and Nanai son of Habi at Mahuza!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And yet it was not doubted that the persons who held the notes were the men named, which proves that even the definite existence of other men of the same name in the same place need not be taken into consideration. This being the rule in monetary matters, it may be inferred that in religious matters, the uncertain existence at least of men of the same name need not be taken into consideration. ');">³⁶</span> And Abaye?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' How' can he maintain his ruling in view' of the decision of Rabbah b. Abbuha. ');">³⁷</span>