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