## Yevamot Daf 115b

###### Yevamot 115b:1
[Yevamot 115b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/115b:1)

וַחֲזֵינְהוּ לְאַלְתַּר, וְקָאָמְרִי סִימָנִין. דְּלָאו עֲלַיְיהוּ סָמְכִינַן, אֶלָּא אַסִּימָנִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**and we saw them immediately** when they came out of the water, **and** the women **stated distinguishing marks** that identified these people. **As,** in this case **we do not rely upon** the women, **but** upon **the distinguishing marks.**


###### Yevamot 115b:2
[Yevamot 115b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/115b:2)

הָהוּא גַּבְרָא דְּאַפְקֵיד שׁוּמְשְׁמֵי גַּבֵּי חַבְרֵיהּ, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הַב לִי שׁוּמְשְׁמַי. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: שְׁקַילְתִּינְהוּ: וְהָא כֵּן וְכֵן הָוַיִין, וּבְחָבִיתָא רַמְיִין. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: דִּידָךְ שְׁקַלְתִּינְהוּ, וְהָנֵי — אַחֲרִינֵי נִינְהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara relates: There was **a certain man who deposited sesame plants with his friend.** Sometime later **he said to him: Give me the sesame plants.** The friend **said to him: You** already **took them.** The owner replied: **But they were** of **such-and-such** an amount, **and placed in a barrel;** go and check that barrel and you will see that I am right. The bailee **said to him: You took your** sesame plants, **and these** in the barrel at my house **are other ones.**


###### Yevamot 115b:3
[Yevamot 115b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/115b:3)

סְבַר רַב חִסְדָּא לְמֵימַר: הַיְינוּ שְׁנֵי תַּלְמִידֵי חֲכָמִים, וְלָא אָמְרִינַן: הָנָךְ אֲזַלוּ לְעָלְמָא, וְהָנֵי אַחֲרִינֵי נִינְהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The case came before the Sages for a ruling. **Rav Ḥisda thought to say: This** situation **is** the same as the situation involving the **two Torah scholars** who drowned, when they used distinguishing marks to identify them. **And we do not say** in that case: **Those** men **went** elsewhere **in the world, and these** men who floated up **are different people.** Here too one may rely upon the distinguishing marks of the sesame plants given by the owner, and there is no reason to think that these sesame plants are different ones.


###### Yevamot 115b:4
[Yevamot 115b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/115b:4)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא: מִי דָּמֵי? הָתָם, קָאָמְרִי סִימָנִים. הָכָא, שׁוּמְשְׁמֵי מַאי סִימָנָא אִית לְהוּ? וּדְקָאָמַר ״כֵּן וְכֵן הָוַיִין״ — אֵימַר חוּשְׁבָּנָא אִיתְרְמִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said to** Rav Ḥisda: **Is it comparable? There they said distinguishing marks** that identified the victims. **Here,** in the case of **sesame plants, what distinguishing marks might they have,** by which they could be identified? **And** as for **that which he said: They were** of **such-and-such** an amount, one can **say it happened by chance** that this second time it **was** the same **amount,** and there is no proof that these are the same sesame plants.


###### Yevamot 115b:5
[Yevamot 115b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/115b:5)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ מָר קַשִּׁישָׁא בַּר רַב חִסְדָּא לְרַב אָשֵׁי: וּמִי חָיְישִׁינַן שֶׁמָּא פִּינָּן? וְהָתְנַן: מָצָא כְלִי וְכָתוּב עָלָיו קוֹף — קׇרְבָּן, מֵם — מַעֲשֵׂר, דָּלֶת — דִּמּוּעַ, טֵית — טֶבֶל, תָּיו — תְּרוּמָה. שֶׁבִּשְׁעַת הַסַּכָּנָה הָיוּ כּוֹתְבִין תָּיו תַּחַת תְּרוּמָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
With regard to the same issue, **Mar Kashisha, son of Rav Ḥisda, said to Rav Ashi: And are we concerned** that **perhaps** the one guarding the plants **moved them** from their place? **But didn’t we learn** in a mishna (*Ma’aser Sheni* 4:11): If one **found a vessel on which** the letter ***kuf* was written,** all objects inside the vessel are designated for a ***korban*,** an offering; if the letter ***mem*** was written on it, it is ***ma’aser*,** tithes; if it was the letter ***dalet*,** it is ***dimua*,** a mixture of *teruma* and non-sacred produce; if ***tet*,** it signifies ***tevel*,** untithed produce; and finally, if it is a ***tav*,** it indicates ***teruma*. As during a time of danger,** i.e., religious persecution against Jews, **they would write,** for example, ***tav* instead of *teruma*.** In this case, no concern is expressed that someone might have moved the *teruma* from that vessel to somewhere else.


###### Yevamot 115b:6
[Yevamot 115b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/115b:6)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבִינָא לְרַב אָשֵׁי: וְלָא חָיְישִׁינַן שֶׁמָּא פִּינָּן? אֵימָא סֵיפָא, רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: אֲפִילּוּ מָצָא חָבִית וְכָתוּב עָלֶיהָ תְּרוּמָה — הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ חוּלִּין, שֶׁאֲנִי אוֹמֵר: אֶשְׁתָּקַד הֲוָה מָלֵא תְּרוּמָה, וּפִינָּהּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
In response to this claim, **Ravina said to Rav Ashi: And aren’t we concerned** that **perhaps** someone **moved** the *teruma* from their place? **Say the latter clause** of that same mishna **Rabbi Yosei says: Even if** one **found a barrel on which** the full word ***teruma* was written, these** contents **are non-sacred. As I say: Last year it was full of *teruma*, and** someone **removed** the contents and replaced them with non-sacred produce. This proves that the possibility that someone moved the original contents is taken into consideration.


###### Yevamot 115b:7
[Yevamot 115b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/115b:7)

אֶלָּא: דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא חָיְישִׁינַן שֶׁמָּא פִּינָּן, וְהָכָא בְּהָא קָמִיפַּלְגִי. מָר סָבַר: אִם אִיתָא דְּפִינָּהוּ — מִיכְפָּר הֲוָה כָּפַר. וְאִידַּךְ: אֵימַר אִישְׁתְּלוֹיֵי אִישְׁתְּלִי. אִי נָמֵי, לְפַנְחַיָּא שַׁבְקֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** say as follows: **Everyone** agrees that **we are concerned** that **perhaps** someone **moved** the contents of a container from their place, **and here,** with regard to the marked vessels, **they disagree about this** issue: **The Sage** who claims that one may rely on the inscription **holds** that **if it is so, that he moved** the *teruma*, **he would have erased** the inscription. **And the other** Sage, Rabbi Yosei, responds that one can **say he forgot** to do so. **Alternatively, he left the label to preserve [*panaḥya*]** the contents, so that people would mistakenly think that it contained *teruma* and would refrain from taking the produce.


###### Yevamot 115b:8
[Yevamot 115b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/115b:8)

יִצְחָק רֵישׁ גָּלוּתָא, בַּר אֲחָתֵיהּ דְּרַב בִּיבִי, הֲוָה קָאָזֵיל מִקּוּרְטָבָא לְאַסְפַּמְיָא, וּשְׁכֵיב. שְׁלַחוּ מֵהָתָם: יִצְחָק רֵישׁ גָּלוּתָא, בַּר אֲחָתֵיהּ דְּרַב בִּיבִי, הֲוָה קָאָזֵיל מִקּוּרְטָבָא לְאַסְפַּמְיָא, וּשְׁכֵיב. מִי חָיְישִׁינַן לִתְרֵי יִצְחָק, אוֹ לָא? אַבָּיֵי אָמַר: חָיְישִׁינַן. רָבָא אָמַר: לָא חָיְישִׁינַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara relates a story that deals with the permission of a woman to remarry. **Yitzḥak the Exilarch, son of the sister of Rav Beivai, was walking from Cortva to Spain and died** along the way. **They sent** this message **from** Spain: **Yitzḥak the Exilarch, son of the sister of Rav Beivai, was walking from Cortva to Spain and died.** The Gemara asks: **Are we concerned about** the possibility of **two** men named **Yitzḥak or not?** Perhaps there is someone else with the same name, and therefore the mention of his name is not a sufficiently distinguishing mark. **Abaye said: We are concerned** about this possibility. **Rava said: We are not concerned.**


###### Yevamot 115b:9
[Yevamot 115b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/115b:9)

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: מְנָא אָמֵינָא לַהּ, דְּהָהוּא גִּיטָּא דְּאִשְׁתְּכַח בִּנְהַרְדְּעָא וּכְתִיב: בְּצַד קְלוֹנְיָא מָתָא אֲנָא אַנְדְּרוֹלִינַאי נְהַרְדָּעָא פְּטַרִית וְתָרֵכִית יָת פְּלוֹנִית אִנְתְּתִי. וְשַׁלְחַהּ אֲבוּהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה נְשִׂיאָה. וּשְׁלַח לֵיהּ: תִּיבָּדֵק נְהַרְדְּעָא כּוּלָּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said: From where do I say** my reasoning that there might be another man with the same name? **As a certain bill of divorce was found in** the city of **Neharde’a, and** this passage was **written** on it: **On the colonial [*kelonya*] side of the city, I, Androlinai of Neharde’a, excused, sent away,** and divorced **my wife so-and-so.** Androlinai’s wife requested permission to remarry based on this bill of divorce, but they did not know if he was the man who gave the divorce or if it was given by another man of the same name. **And the father of Shmuel sent this** question **before Rabbi Yehuda Nesia** in Eretz Yisrael. **And** Rabbi Yehuda Nesia **sent** a message **to him: All of Neharde’a must be examined,** to see whether there is another man by that name. This shows that one must be concerned that there might be two people with the same name.


###### Yevamot 115b:10
[Yevamot 115b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/115b:10)

וְרָבָא אָמַר: אִם אִיתָא — ״יִבָּדֵק כׇּל הָעוֹלָם״ מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ?! אֶלָּא מִשּׁוּם כְּבוֹדוֹ דַּאֲבוּהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל הוּא דִּשְׁלַח הָכִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rava said:** This story provides no proof. **If it is so,** that there were grounds to suspect that someone else of the same name wrote the bill of divorce, Rabbi Yehuda Nesia **should have** said: **The entire world must be examined,** in case there is someone else with the same name somewhere. Since he did not say this, evidently there was no legitimate reason for this suspicion at all. Why, then, did Rabbi Yehuda Nesia send instructions to examine all of Neharde’a? **Rather,** Rava added, **it was due to respect for the father of Shmuel that he sent this** message. He did not want to write explicitly that Shmuel’s father had inquired unnecessarily, and therefore he wrote his reply in a manner which indicated his partial agreement with the concern.


###### Yevamot 115b:11
[Yevamot 115b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/115b:11)

אָמַר רָבָא: מְנָא אָמֵינָא לַהּ — דְּהָנְהוּ תְּרֵי שְׁטָרֵי דְּנָפְקִי בְּמָחוֹזָא וּכְתִיב בְּהוּ: חָבֵי בַּר נַנַּאי וְנַנַּאי בַּר חָבֵי, וְאַגְבִּי בְּהוּ רָבָא בַּר אֲבוּהּ זוּזֵי. וְהָא חָבֵי בַּר נַנַּאי וְנַנַּאי בַּר חָבֵי בְּמָחוֹזָא שְׁכִיחִי טוּבָא. וְאַבָּיֵי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said: From where do I say** my reasoning that we are not concerned about two people with identical names? **As there were two** promissory **notes produced in Meḥoza, and** these names of the creditors were **written on them: Ḥavai bar Nanai and Nanai bar Ḥavai, and Rava bar Avuh collected dinars** for them **with these** promissory notes, without concerning himself with the possibility that they might be referring to other people. **And** the names **Ḥavai bar Nanai and Nanai bar Ḥavai are very common in Meḥoza,** i.e., there are certainly other people with these names, and yet he was not worried about this matter. The Gemara asks: **And Abaye,** how does he answer this proof?