## Yevamot Daf 120b

###### Yevamot 120b:1
[Yevamot 120b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/120b:1)

סִימָן מוּבְהָק קָא מִיפַּלְגִי. מָר סָבַר סִימָן מוּבְהָק, וּמָר סָבַר לָאו סִימָן מוּבְהָק.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**is an unambiguous distinguishing mark** that **they disagree.** One **Sage,** Rabbi Eliezer ben Mahavai, **holds** that a mole **is an unambiguous distinguishing mark** and may be relied upon by Torah law. Consequently, if a man’s corpse was identified in this manner, his wife may remarry. **And** one **Sage,** the anonymous first *tanna*, **holds** that a mole **is not an unambiguous distinguishing mark.**


###### Yevamot 120b:2
[Yevamot 120b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/120b:2)

וּלְהַךְ לִישָּׁנָא דְּאָמַר רָבָא סִימָנִין דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא, הָא קָתָנֵי: אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁיֵּשׁ סִימָנִין בְּגוּפוֹ וּבְכֵלָיו!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **According to the** first **version, that Rava said** that **distinguishing marks are** recognized as valid identification **by Torah** law, there is a question: **Isn’t it taught** in the mishna: **Although there are distinguishing marks on his body and his personal belongings,** one may not rely on these as identification, implying that distinguishing marks are not valid identification by Torah law?


###### Yevamot 120b:3
[Yevamot 120b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/120b:3)

גּוּפוֹ — דְּאָרוֹךְ וְגוּץ. כֵּלָיו — דְּחָיְישִׁינַן לִשְׁאֵלָה. וְאִי חָיְישִׁינַן לִשְׁאֵלָה, חֲמוֹר בְּסִימָנֵי אוּכָּף הֵיכִי מַהְדְּרִינַן?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: The mishna’s intent is that ordinary distinguishing marks on **one’s body,** which constitute only weak evidence to a person’s identity, e.g., **that he was tall or short,** are not valid identification. Additionally, one cannot rely upon distinguishing marks on his **personal belongings, as we are concerned about borrowing,** i.e., perhaps the deceased had borrowed the clothes he was wearing from someone else. The Gemara asks: **But if we are concerned about borrowing,** then, with regard to returning lost property, **how can we return a donkey based** solely **upon distinguishing marks on the saddle?** Why don’t we consider the possibility that the saddle was borrowed?


###### Yevamot 120b:4
[Yevamot 120b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/120b:4)

לָא שָׁיְילִי אִינָשֵׁי אוּכָּפָא, דִּמְסַקֵּיב לֵיהּ לַחֲמָרָא. מְצָאוֹ קָשׁוּר בְּכִיס וּבְאַרְנָקִי וּבְטַבַּעַת, הֵיכִי מַהְדְּרִינַן?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **People do not** normally **borrow a saddle because it bruises the donkey,** as the saddle must fit exactly to the donkey’s measurements. The Gemara raises further objections based upon the *baraita* cited earlier: **If he found** the lost bill of divorce **tied to a purse, or a money bag, or a ring,** he may rely upon the distinguishing marks on those items and deliver the bill of divorce to the woman. But **how can we return it** and not be concerned that these belongings may have been lent to someone else whose bill of divorce is tied to them?


###### Yevamot 120b:5
[Yevamot 120b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/120b:5)

טַבַּעַת — חָיְישִׁי לְזַיּוֹפֵי. כִּיס וְאַרְנָקִי — מְנַחֲשִׁי אִינָשֵׁי וְלָא מוֹשְׁלִי. וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: כֵּלָיו, בְּחִיוָּרֵי וְסוּמָּקֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: The case of the **ring** is referring to a signet ring, which one does not lend, **because he is concerned about forgery,** i.e., that the borrower might use it to forge his consent on documents without his knowledge. With regard to **a purse or a money bag, people consider it a bad omen** to lend them out **and do not lend** them to others. **And if you wish, say** that the reason not to permit a woman to remarry and not to accept that her husband is dead based upon the distinguishing marks found on **his personal belongings** is that the distinguishing marks referred to are only general ones, e.g., he wore **white or red** clothing, but they are not unambiguous distinguishing marks.


###### Yevamot 120b:6
[Yevamot 120b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/120b:6)

וַאֲפִילּוּ רָאוּהוּ מְגוּיָּיד וְכוּ׳. לְמֵימְרָא דִּמְגוּיָּיד חָיֵי? וּרְמִינְהִי: אָדָם אֵינוֹ מְטַמֵּא עַד שֶׁתֵּצֵא נַפְשׁוֹ, אֲפִילּוּ מְגוּיָּיד, וַאֲפִילּוּ גּוֹסֵס. טַמּוֹיֵי לָא מְטַמֵּא, הָא מִיחְיָיא — לָא חָיֵי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ We learned in the mishna: **And even if one saw him cut open [*meguyyad*]** and severely wounded, one may not testify that he died. The Gemara asks: **Is this to say that** a person who is **cut open is** fit **to live** for much time afterward? The Gemara **raises a contradiction** from what was taught in a mishna (*Oholot* 1:6): A dead **person renders** other people and objects **impure only when his soul** actually **departs, even if he is cut open** and severely wounded, **and even if he is** clearly **dying.** From this we may deduce that **he does not** yet **render** others **ritually impure,** as he still has some life in him, **but he is not** fit **to live** for much time afterward.


###### Yevamot 120b:7
[Yevamot 120b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/120b:7)

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי, לָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר, הָא רַבָּנַן, דְּתַנְיָא: מְעִידִין עַל הַמְגוּיָּיד, וְאֵין מְעִידִין עַל הַצָּלוּב. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר: אַף עַל הַמְגוּיָּיד אֵין מְעִידִין, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁיָּכוֹל לִכָּווֹת וְלִחְיוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said:** The contradiction raised is **not difficult: This** mishna here **is** in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar,** while **that** mishna from tractate *Oholot* **is** in accordance with the opinion of **the Rabbis, as it is taught** in a *baraita*: **One may testify about** the death of a person who is **cut open, but one may not testify about a crucified person. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: Even concerning** a person who is **cut open, one may not testify** that he is dead **because** his wound **can be scorched,** and this cauterization of the wound may stop the flow of blood **and** allow him to **survive.**


###### Yevamot 120b:8
[Yevamot 120b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/120b:8)

וּמִי מָצֵית לְאוֹקוֹמֵי כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר? וְהָא קָתָנֵי סֵיפָא: מַעֲשֶׂה בְּעַסְיָא בְּאֶחָד שֶׁשִּׁילְשְׁלוּהוּ לַיָּם, וְלֹא עָלְתָה בְּיָדָם אֶלָּא רַגְלוֹ, וְאָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים: מִן הָאַרְכּוּבָּה וּלְמַעְלָה — תִּנָּשֵׂא, מִן הָאַרְכּוּבָּה וּלְמַטָּה — לֹא תִּנָּשֵׂא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges this: **But can you establish** the mishna to be **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar? Isn’t it taught** in **the latter clause** (121a): **An incident** occurred **in Asya in which they lowered a certain** man **into the sea** on a rope, **and** when they pulled the rope back to land **only his leg came up in their hands.** They were not certain whether he was alive or dead. **The Sages said:** If his leg was cut **from the knee and above,** his wife **may marry,** as he would not survive such a wound; if his leg was cut only **from the knee and below, she may not marry.** This indicates that someone cut open in the first manner is assumed to be dead. If this follows Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar’s opinion, why doesn’t it say that there is a concern that he might be alive even if the leg was cut from the knee and above?


###### Yevamot 120b:9
[Yevamot 120b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/120b:9)

שָׁאנֵי מַיָּא דְּמַרְזוּ מַכָּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Water is different, as it aggravates the wound.** Since he was in the water, it can be assumed that such a wound will certainly lead to death.


###### Yevamot 120b:10
[Yevamot 120b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/120b:10)

וְהָאָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה: לְדִידִי חֲזֵי לִי הַהוּא טַיָּיעָא דְּשָׁקֵיל סַפְסִירָא וְגַיְּידֵיהּ לְגַמְלֵיהּ, וְלָא אַפְסֵיקְתַּיהּ לְנַעֲרוּתֵיהּ! אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: הָהִיא כְּחִישָׁא הַוְיָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But didn’t Rabba bar bar Ḥanna say: I myself saw an Arab who took his sword [*safseira*] and cut open his camel, and** the camel died so quickly that it **could not** even **cease its braying** before it died? This indicates that a living being that is cut open has no chance of surviving. **Abaye said: That** camel **was emaciated** and weak, causing it to die immediately, but a normal camel would not have died so quickly.


###### Yevamot 120b:11
[Yevamot 120b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/120b:11)

רָבָא אָמַר: בְּסַכִּין מְלוּבֶּנֶת, וְדִבְרֵי הַכֹּל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said** a different resolution to the apparent contradiction between the mishna here and the mishna in tractate *Oholot*: The mishna here is referring to a case where the man was cut open **with a white-hot knife, and everyone agrees** that one may not testify to the death of a person wounded in such a manner, as the wound would close due to the heat.


###### Yevamot 120b:12
[Yevamot 120b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/120b:12)

וְהַחַיָּה אוֹכֶלֶת וְכוּ׳. אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא מִמָּקוֹם שֶׁאֵין נַפְשׁוֹ יוֹצְאָה, אֲבָל מִמָּקוֹם שֶׁנַּפְשׁוֹ יוֹצְאָה — מְעִידִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ It was taught in the mishna: **Or** even if one saw that a wild **animal was eating** parts of him, one may not testify that he died. **Rav Yehuda said** that **Shmuel said: They taught** this **only** where the animal was eating **from a place** on his body **that does not** cause **his soul to depart,** i.e., does not inevitably lead to death, such as his hand or foot. **But** if the animal was eating **from a place** on his body **that does** cause **his soul to depart, one may testify** to his death.


###### Yevamot 120b:13
[Yevamot 120b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/120b:13)

וְאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: שָׁחַט בּוֹ שְׁנַיִם, אוֹ רוֹב שְׁנַיִם, וּבָרַח — מְעִידִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rav Yehuda said** that **Shmuel said: If** someone **cut** a man’s **two** passageways, the trachea and the esophagus, **or most of** the way through the **two** passageways, **and** the maimed person **fled, one may testify** to his death.


###### Yevamot 120b:14
[Yevamot 120b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/120b:14)

אִינִי? וְהָאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: שָׁחַט בּוֹ שְׁנַיִם אוֹ רוֹב שְׁנַיִם, וְרָמַז וְאָמַר: ״כִּתְבוּ גֵּט לְאִשְׁתִּי״ — הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ יִכְתְּבוּ וְיִתְּנוּ. חַי הוּא, וְסוֹפוֹ לָמוּת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges that conclusion: **Is that so? But didn’t Rav Yehuda say** that **Shmuel said: If** someone **cut** a man’s **two** passageways, **or most of** the way through the **two** passageways, **and** the maimed person **gestured and** thereby **communicated: Write a bill of divorce for my wife, then these** onlookers **should write** it **and deliver** it to her. Since only a living person may give a bill of divorce, this indicates that the maimed man is considered alive. The Gemara answers: **He is** still **alive** at the moment, **but he will eventually die** from the wound. Consequently, he may appoint an agent to deliver a bill of divorce to his wife, but after a while one may testify that he is dead.


###### Yevamot 120b:15
[Yevamot 120b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/120b:15)

אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, יְהֵא גּוֹלֶה עַל יָדוֹ. אַלְּמָה תַּנְיָא: שָׁחַט שְׁנַיִם אוֹ רוֹב שְׁנַיִם — הֲרֵי זֶה אֵינוֹ גּוֹלֶה! הָא אִיתְּמַר עֲלַהּ, אָמַר רַב הוֹשַׁעְיָא: חָיְישִׁינַן שֶׁמָּא הָרוּחַ בִּלְבְּלַתּוּ. אִי נָמֵי, שֶׁמָּא אִיהוּ

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **If that is so,** that such a wound is definitely fatal, one who unintentionally wounds another in this manner **should be exiled on his account,** in accordance with the *halakha* of one who unintentionally kills another. **Why is** it **taught** in a *baraita*: **If** one unintentionally **cut** the **two** passageways of another person, **or most of** the thickness of **the two, he is not exiled?** The Gemara answers: **But it was stated with regard to** that *baraita* that **Rav Hoshaya said: We are concerned that perhaps the wind aggravated his** condition and actually caused his death, in which case the perpetrator is not culpable for the death and should not be exiled. **Alternatively, perhaps he,** the maimed person,