Yevamot 240:1

סימן מובהק קא מיפלגי מר סבר סימן מובהק ומר סבר לאו סימן מובהק

constitutes a distinct<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H] rt. [H] 'to shine', 'glisten'. ');">¹</span> identification mark<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And may consequently serve as proof even in pentateuchal prohibitions. ');">²</span> that they differ. One Master is of the opinion that it constitutes a distinct identification mark,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And may consequently serve as proof even in pentateuchal prohibitions. ');">²</span>

ולהך לישנא דאמר רבא סימנין דאורייתא הא קתני אף על פי שיש סימנין בגופו ובכליו

and the other Master is of the opinion that it does not constitute a distinct identification mark. With reference to the version according to which Raba stated that 'identification marks are valid Pentateuchally' [the objection might be raised:] Surely it was taught, THOUGH THERE WERE ALSO MARKS ON THE MAN'S BODY OR CLOTHING!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If identification marks have pentateuchal validity these should have been regarded as reliable. ');">³</span> — As to the BODY [the marks indicated by the witnesses were only that the corpse was] long or short;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which cannot be regarded as reliable marks of identification. ');">⁴</span>

גופו דארוך וגוץ כליו דחיישינן לשאלה ואי חיישינן לשאלה חמור בסימני אוכף היכי מהדרינן

and as to one's CLOTHING [no reliability can be placed upon their identification] since borrowing might be apprehended.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' There is no proof that the dead man was wearing his own clothes. V. supra note 5. ');">⁵</span> If, however, borrowing is to be apprehended how could we allow the return of an ass<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That was found. ');">⁶</span> on [the strength of] the identification marks of a saddle!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. B.M. 27a. ');">⁷</span>

לא שיילי אינשי אוכפא דמסקיב ליה לחמרא מצאו קשור בכיס ובארנקי ובטבעת היכי מהדרינן

— People do not borrow a saddle because it makes the back of the ass sore.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The saddle of one ass does not fit another. A saddle, therefore, is a proper mark of identification. ');">⁸</span> Where one 'found it tied to a bag, a purse or a seal-ring',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 120a. ');">⁹</span> how do we allow its return!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is possible, surely, that the objects were borrowed from another man and that the document tied to them was not the lost original. ');">¹⁰</span>

טבעת חייש לזיופי כיס וארנקי מנחשי אינשי ולא מושלי ואיבעית אימא כליו בחיורי וסומקי:

— As to a seal-ring one is afraid of forgery;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the seal; and does not lend it to anyone. Hence it may justly be presumed to belong the person on whose body it is found. ');">¹¹</span> as to one's bag and purse, people are superstitious<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The lending of such an object is supposed to effect a transfer of the lender's luck to the borrower. ');">¹²</span> and do not lend such objects.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra n. 3. ');">¹³</span>

ואפילו ראוהו מגוייד וכו': למימרא דמגוייד חיי ורמינהי אדם אינו מטמא עד שתצא נפשו אפילו מגוייד ואפי' גוסס טמויי לא מטמא הא מיחייא לא חיי

And if you prefer I might say [that the identification marks of one's] CLOTHING [consisted in a statement] that they were white or red.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Many persons wear garments of red and white, and the colours therefore, cannot be regarded as a reliable mark of identification. ');">¹⁴</span> EVEN THOUGH THE WITNESSES HAVE SEEN HIM WITH HIS ARTERIES CUT etc. This then implies that a man whose arteries have been cut may live; but this is inconsistent with the following: A person does not cause defilement<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As a corpse. ');">¹⁵</span> before his soul has departed, even though his arteries had been cut and even though he is in a dying condition.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ohal. 1, 6. ');">¹⁶</span>

אמר אביי לא קשיא הא ר"ש בן אלעזר הא רבנן דתניא מעידין על המגוייד ואין מעידין על הצלוב רבי שמעון בן אלעזר אומר אף על המגוייד אין מעידין מפני שיכול לכוות ולחיות

[Thus it follows that] it is only defilement that he does not cause but that it is impossible for him to live!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is contradictory to the implication in our Mishnah. ');">¹⁷</span> — Abaye replied: This is no difficulty. The one represents the view of<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'that'. ');">¹⁸</span> R. Simeon b. Eleazar; the other that of<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'that'. ');">¹⁸</span>

ומי מצית לאוקומי כר"ש בן אלעזר והא קתני סיפא מעשה בעסיא באחד ששילשלוהו לים ולא עלתה בידם אלא רגלו ואמרו חכמים מן הארכובה ולמעלה תנשא מן הארכובה ולמטה לא תנשא

the Rabbis. For it was taught: Evidence may be legally tendered on [the death of a person] whose arteries were cut,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The evidence being accepted as valid to enable the man's wife to remarry. ');">¹⁹</span> but no such evidence may be tendered concerning one crucified. R. Simeon b. Eleazar ruled: No such evidence may be legally tendered even concerning one whose arteries were cut, because [the wounds] might be cauterized and [the man] may survive.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'he is able to burn and to live'. Our Mishnah would thus represent the view of R. Simeon b. Eleazar. ');">²⁰</span> Can this,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra n. 8. ');">²¹</span>

שאני מיא דמרזו מכה

however, be reconciled<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'be set up'. ');">²²</span> with the views of R. Simeon b. Eleazar? Surely in the final clause<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. infra 121a, the continuation of our Mishnah. ');">²³</span> it was taught: It once happened at Asia that a man<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A diver. ');">²⁴</span>

והאמר רבה בר בר חנה לדידי חזי לי ההוא טייעא דשקיל ספסירא וגיידיה לגמליה ולא אפסיקתיה לנערותיה אמר אביי ההיא כחישא הויא

was lowered into the sea and Only his leg was brought up,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'and it did not go up in their hands but his leg'. ');">²⁵</span> and the Sages ruled: [If the recovered leg contained the part] above the knee [the man's wife] may marry again,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since after the loss of so much of the limb the man cannot survive. ');">²⁶</span> [but if it contained only the part] below the knee she may not remarry!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because a man may survive even in such circumstances. The drowning also cannot be regarded as a certainty since the waters may have thrown the body up on another shore where the man's life may have been saved. Now, if our Mishnah represents the view of R. Simeon b. Eleazar, remarriage should be forbidden even in the case where 'the part above the knee' was also torn away! ');">²⁷</span>

רבא אמר בסכין מלובנת ודברי הכל:

— Waters are different since they irritate the wound.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And this makes survival in the first case (cf, supra n. 2 final clause) impossible. ');">²⁸</span> But, surely, Rabbah b. Bar Hana related: I myself have seen an Arab merchant who took hold of a sword and cut open the arteries of his camel, but this did not cause it to cease its cry!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Till the actual moment of death, which shows that even after the cutting of its arteries an animal may still live. ');">²⁹</span> — Abaye replied: That [camel] was a lean animal.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And the wound was not deep. ');">³⁰</span>

והחיה אוכלת וכו': אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל לא שנו אלא ממקום שאין נפשו יוצאה אבל ממקום שנפשו יוצאה מעידין

Raba replied: [The operation was performed] with a glowing hot knife,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which cauterized the wound. ');">³¹</span> and this is in agreement with the opinion of all.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since all agree that a cauterized wound is not fatal. ');">³²</span> OR BEING DEVOURED BY A WILD BEAST etc. Rab Judah stated In the name of Samuel: This has been taught only in the case [where the attack was] not on a vital organ,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'from a place from which his soul does not depart'. ');">³³</span>

וא"ר יהודה אמר שמואל שחט בו שנים או רוב שנים וברח מעידין

but where it was on a vital organ, evidence may be legally tendered. Rab Judah further stated in the name of Samuel: If a person whose two organs<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The oesophagus and the trachea. ');">³⁴</span> or the greater part of them were cut<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'he cut on him two or the greater part of two'. ');">³⁵</span>

איני והאמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל שחט בו שנים או רוב שנים ורמז ואמר כתבו גט לאשתי הרי אלו יכתבו ויתנו חי הוא וסופו למות

escaped, evidence [of his death] may be legally tendered.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' His wife being permitted to marry again. 621. 70b. ');">³⁶</span> But this cannot be! For, surely, Rab Judah stated in the name of Samuel: If a man whose two [organs]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The oesophagus and the trachea. ');">³⁴</span> or the greater part of them were cut<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'he cut on him two or the greater part of two'. ');">³⁵</span>

אלא מעתה יהא גולה על ידו אלמה תניא שחט שנים או רוב שנים הרי זה אינו גולה הא איתמר עלה אמר רב הושעיא חיישינן שמא הרוח בלבלתו אי נמי שמא איהו

indicated by gestures, 'Write a letter of divorce for my wife', [such document] is to be written and delivered [to his wife]!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'behold these shall write and give'; which shows that one in such a condition is still regarded as a living man. How, then, could it be said that Rab Judah in the name of Samuel accepted the legality of the evidence of death in similar circumstances! ');">³⁷</span> — He is alive<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence the validity of his letter of divorce. ');">³⁸</span> but will eventually die.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And the evidence of his — death is consequently also valid. ');">³⁹</span> If this is so<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If eventual death is regarded as a certainty. ');">⁴⁰</span> one<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The man who unwittingly inflicted the wounds mentioned. ');">⁴¹</span> should go into exile<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Deut. XIX, 2f ');">⁴²</span> on account of him; while, in fact,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'wherefore'. ');">⁴³</span> it was taught: If a man cut [unwittingly] the two, or the greater part of the two [organs<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The oesophagus and the trachea. ');">⁴⁴</span> of another man] he is not to go into exile! — Surely in connection with this it was stated that R. Hoshaia explained: The possibility must be taken into consideration that the wind might have aggravated the wound<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Or 'made him senseless' (cf. Jast.). ');">⁴⁵</span> or that he himself<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By excessive struggling. ');">⁴⁶</span> also may