Yevamot

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 mole