Yevamot

and we saw then, immediately [afterwards]',  and they also mention [his identification] marks. so that we do not rely upon them  but on the marks. 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'.  '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,  where we do not assume that those have gone elsewhere and these are others.  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]  take into consideration the possibility that [the contents of a vessel] may have been removed?  Surely we learned: If a man found a vessel on which was inscribed a Kof it is korban;  if a Mem, it is ma'aser;  if a Daleth it is demu'a;  if a Teth, it is Tebel;  and if a Taw, It is terumah;  for in the period of danger  they used to write a Taw for terumah!  — Said Rabina to R. Ashi: Do we not [in such circumstances]  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 'terumah' was inscribed [the contents] are nevertheless regarded as unconsecrated, for it is assumed  that though it was in the previous year full of terumah it has subsequently been emptied!  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. Resh Galutha Isaac,  a son of R. Bebai's sister, once went from Cordova to Spain  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  or not? — Abaye said: It is to be taken into consideration:  but Raba said: It is not to be taken into consideration. Said Abaye: How  do I arrive at my assertion? — Because in  a letter of divorce that was once found in Nehardea it was written, 'Near the town of Kolonia,  I, David son of Nehilais,  a Nehardean, released and divorced my wife So-and-so', and when Samuel's father sent it to R. Judah Nesiah  the latter replied: 'Let all Nehardea be searched'.  Raba, however, said: If that were so  he  should [have ordered] the whole world to be searched!  The truth is that it was only out of respect for Samuel's father  that he sent that message. Raba said: How  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  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!  And Abaye?