Yevamot

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