1 That of allowing her rival to marry before herself. If it is granted that a rival may give evidence in favour of her associate, her rival may be permitted to marry even if she herself did not remarry. If, however, it be maintained that the reason is because she would not cause injury to herself, the rival would be permitted to marry only if she herself had married again, but if she herself did not remarry, her rival also would not be permitted to remarry. Now, what [is the decision]? — Come and hear: R. ELEAZAR RULED: SINCE THEY WERE ONCE PERMITTED TO THE LEVIR THEY ARE PERMITTED TO MARRY ANY MAN. Now, if it be granted that [the reason is because] she would not cause injury to herself one can well see the reason why only when the one married again is the other permitted to remarry. If it be maintained, however, that the reason is because a rival is eligible to tender evidence in favour of her associate, [the associate should be permitted to marry again] even if the rival did not remarry. Consequently it must be concluded that R. Eleazar's reason is: Because she herself had married again and she would not cause injury to herself! — R. Eleazar may have argued on the basis of the view of the Rabbis. 'According to my view [he may have said in effect] a rival is eligible to tender evidence in favour of her associate, and even if she herself did not remarry the other may be allowed to marry again. According to your view, however, you must at least agree with me that where she herself' remarried the other also should be allowed to marry again, since she would naturally not injure herself!' And the Rabbis? — She might be acting [in the spirit of] let me die with the Philistines. Come and hear: If a woman and her husband went to a country beyond the sea, and she returned and stated, 'My husband is dead', she may be married again and she also receives her kethubah. Her rival, however, is forbidden. R. Eleazar ruled: Since she becomes permitted her rival also becomes permitted! — Read: Since she was permitted and she married again. Let it, however, be apprehended that she may have returned with a letter of divorce and that the reason why she made her statement is because it was her intention to injure her rival! — If she was married to an Israelite, this would be so indeed; but here we are dealing with one who married a priest. MISHNAH. EVIDENCE [OF IDENTITY] MAY BE LEGALLY TENDERED ONLY ON [PROOF AFFORDED BY] THE FULL FACE WITH THE NOSE, THOUGH THERE WERE ALSO MARKS ON THE MAN'S BODY OR CLOTHING. NO EVIDENCE [OF A MAN'S DEATH] MAY BE TENDERED BEFORE HIS SOUL HAS DEPARTED; EVEN THOUGH THE WITNESSES HAVE SEEN HIM WITH HIS ARTERIES CUT OR CRUCIFIED OR BEING DEVOURED BY A WILD BEAST. EVIDENCE [OF IDENTIFICATION] MAY BE TENDERED [BY THOSE] ONLY [WHO SAW THE CORPSE] WITHIN THREE DAYS [AFTER DEATH]. R. JUDAH B. BABA, HOWEVER, SAID: NEITHER ALL MEN, NOR ALL PLACES, NOR ALL SEASONS ARE ALIKE. GEMARA. Our Rabbis taught: Evidence [of identification] may be tendered only on [proof afforded by] the forehead without the face or the face without the forehead — Both together with the nose must be present. Abaye, or it might be said, R. Kahana, stated: What is the Scriptural proof? — The shew of their countenance doth witness against them. Abba b. Martha, otherwise Abba b. Manyumi, was being pressed for the payment of some money by the people of the Exilarch's house. Taking some wax he smeared it on a piece of rag and stuck it upon his forehead. He passed before them and they did not recognize him. THOUGH THERE WERE ALSO MARKS etc. Does this imply that identification marks are not valid Pentateuchally? A contradiction, surely, may be pointed out: If he found it tied to a bag, a purse or a seal-ring or if it was found among his furniture, even after a long time, it is valid! — Abaye replied: This is no difficulty. The one is the view of R. Eliezer b. Mahebai while the other is that of the Rabbis. For it was taught: No evidence [of identification] by a mole may he legally tendered. R. Eliezer h. Mahebai ruled: Such evidence may be legally tendered. Do they not differ on the following principle, that one Master is of the opinion that identification marks are valid Pentateuchally while the other Master is of the opinion that identification marks are only Rabbinically valid? — Said Raba: All agree that identification marks are valid Pentateuchally; but here they differ on the question whether it is common for the same kind of mole to he found on persons of simultaneous birth. One Master is of the opinion that it is common for the same kind of mole to be found on persons of simultaneous birth, and the other Master is of the opinion that it is not common for the same kind of mole to be found on persons of simultaneous birth. Others say: Their point of difference here is whether a mole usually undergoes a change after one's death — One Master is of the opinion that it usually undergoes a change after one's death and the other Master is of the opinion that it does not usually undergo a change after one's death. Others maintain that Raba said: All agree that identification marks are only Rabbinically valid; but here [it is on the question] whether a moleᵃᵇᶜᵈᵉᶠᵍʰⁱʲᵏˡᵐⁿᵒᵖᵠʳˢᵗᵘᵛʷˣʸᶻᵃᵃᵃᵇᵃᶜᵃᵈᵃᵉᵃᶠᵃᵍᵃʰᵃⁱᵃʲᵃᵏᵃˡᵃᵐᵃⁿᵃᵒᵃᵖᵃᵠᵃʳᵃˢᵃᵗᵃᵘᵃᵛᵃʷᵃˣᵃʸ
2 constitutes a distinct identification mark that they differ. One Master is of the opinion that it constitutes a distinct identification mark, 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! — As to the BODY [the marks indicated by the witnesses were only that the corpse was] long or short; and as to one's CLOTHING [no reliability can be placed upon their identification] since borrowing might be apprehended. If, however, borrowing is to be apprehended how could we allow the return of an ass on [the strength of] the identification marks of a saddle! — People do not borrow a saddle because it makes the back of the ass sore. Where one 'found it tied to a bag, a purse or a seal-ring', how do we allow its return! — As to a seal-ring one is afraid of forgery; as to one's bag and purse, people are superstitious and do not lend such objects. 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. 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 before his soul has departed, even though his arteries had been cut and even though he is in a dying condition. [Thus it follows that] it is only defilement that he does not cause but that it is impossible for him to live! — Abaye replied: This is no difficulty. The one represents the view of R. Simeon b. Eleazar; the other that of the Rabbis. For it was taught: Evidence may be legally tendered on [the death of a person] whose arteries were cut, 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. Can this, however, be reconciled with the views of R. Simeon b. Eleazar? Surely in the final clause it was taught: It once happened at Asia that a man was lowered into the sea and Only his leg was brought up, and the Sages ruled: [If the recovered leg contained the part] above the knee [the man's wife] may marry again, [but if it contained only the part] below the knee she may not remarry! — Waters are different since they irritate the wound. 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! — Abaye replied: That [camel] was a lean animal. Raba replied: [The operation was performed] with a glowing hot knife, and this is in agreement with the opinion of all. 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, 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 or the greater part of them were cut escaped, evidence [of his death] may be legally tendered. But this cannot be! For, surely, Rab Judah stated in the name of Samuel: If a man whose two [organs] or the greater part of them were cut indicated by gestures, 'Write a letter of divorce for my wife', [such document] is to be written and delivered [to his wife]! — He is alive but will eventually die. If this is so one should go into exile on account of him; while, in fact, it was taught: If a man cut [unwittingly] the two, or the greater part of the two [organs 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 or that he himself also may