וְחָזִינְהוּ לְאַלְתַּר, וְקָאָמְרִי סִימָנִין, דְּלָאו עֲלַיְיהוּ סָמְכִינַן – אֶלָּא אַסִּימָנִים.

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.

הַהוּא גַּבְרָא דְּאַפְקֵיד שׁוּמְשְׁמֵי גַּבֵּי חַבְרֵיהּ, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הַב לִי שׁוּמְשְׁמֵי! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: שְׁקִילְתִּינְהוּ. וְהָא כֵּן וְכֵן הָוְיָין, וּבְחָבִיתָא רַמְיָין! אָמַר לֵיהּ: דִּידָךְ – שְׁקַלְתִּינְהוּ, וְהָנֵי אַחֲרִינֵי נִינְהוּ.

§ 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.

סָבַר רַב חִסְדָּא לְמֵימַר: הַיְינוּ שְׁנֵי תַלְמִידֵי חֲכָמִים, וְלָא אָמְרִינַן הָנָךְ אָזְלוּ לְעָלְמָא וְהָנֵי אַחֲרִינֵי נִינְהוּ.

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.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא: מִי דָּמֵי? הָתָם קָאָמְרִי סִימָנִים, הָכָא – שׁוּמְשְׁמֵי מַאי סִימָנָא אִית לְהוּ? וּדְקָאָמַר כֵּן וְכֵן הָוְיָין – אֵימַר חוּשְׁבְּנָא אִיתְרְמִי.

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.

אָמַר לֵיהּ מָר קַשִּׁישָׁא בַּר רַב חִסְדָּא לְרַב אַשִׁי: וּמִי חָיְישִׁינַן שֶׁמָּא פִּינָּן? וְהָתְנַן: מָצָא כְּלִי וְכָתוּב עָלָיו קוֹ״ף – קָרְבָּן, מֵ״ם – מַעֲשֵׂר, דָּלֶ״ת – דִּמּוּעַ, טֵי״ת – טֶבֶל, תָּי״ו – תְּרוּמָה. שֶׁבִּשְׁעַת הַסַּכָּנָה הָיוּ כּוֹתְבִין תָּי״ו תַּחַת תְּרוּמָה.

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.

אָמַר לֵיהּ רָבִינָא לְרַב אַשִׁי: וְלָא חָיְישִׁינַן שֶׁמָּא פִּינָּן? אֵימָא סֵיפָא, רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: אֲפִילּוּ מָצָא חָבִית וְכָתוּב עָלֶיהָ תְּרוּמָה – הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ חוּלִּין, שֶׁאֲנִי אוֹמֵר: אֶשְׁתָּקַד הֲוָה מָלֵא תְּרוּמָה, וּפִינָּה.

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.

אֶלָּא: דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא חָיְישִׁינַן שֶׁמָּא פִּינָּן, וְהָכָא בְּהָא קָמִיפַּלְגִי; מָר סָבַר: אִם אִיתָא דְּפִינָּהוּ – מִיכְפַּר הֲוָה כָּפַר, וְאִידָךְ: אֵימַר אִישְׁתַּלּוּיֵי אִישְׁתְּלֵי, אִי נַמִי: לְפָנַחְיָא שְׁבַקֵיהּ.

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.

יִצְחָק רֵישׁ גָּלוּתָא בַּר אַחְתֵּיהּ דְּרַב בֵּיבָי הֲוָה קָאָזֵיל מִקּוֹרְטְבָא לְאַסְפַּמְיָא וּשְׁכִיב. שָׁלְחוּ מֵהָתָם: יִצְחָק רֵישׁ גָּלוּתָא בַּר אַחְתֵּיהּ דְּרַב בֵּיבָי הֲוָה קָאָזֵיל מִקּוֹרְטְבָא לְאַסְפַּמְיָא וּשְׁכִיב. מִי חָיְישִׁינַן לִתְרֵי יִצְחָק, אוֹ לָא? אַבַּיֵי אֲמַר: חָיְישִׁינַן, רָבָא אֲמַר: לָא חָיְישִׁינַן.

§ 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.

אֲמַר אַבַּיֵי: מְנָא אָמִינָא לָהּ – דְּהַהוּא גִּיטָּא דְּאִשְׁתַּכַּח בִּנְהַרְדְּעָא, וּכְתִיב: בְּצַד קְלוֹנְיָא מָתָא, אֲנָא אַנְדְּרוֹלִינַאי נְהַרְדְּעָא פְּטָרִית וּתְרָכֵית יַת פְּלוֹנִית אִנְתְּתִי. וּשְׁלָחָהּ אֲבוּהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה נְשִׂיאָה, וְשָׁלַח לֵיהּ: תִּיבָּדֵק נְהַרְדְּעָא כּוּלָּהּ.

Abaye said: From where do I say my reasoning 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.

וְרָבָא אֲמַר: אִם אִיתָא – יִבָּדֵק כָּל הָעוֹלָם מִיבָּעֵי לֵיהּ, אֶלָּא מִשּׁוּם כְּבוֹדוֹ דַּאֲבוּהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל הוּא דְּשָׁלַח הָכִי.

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.

אֲמַר רָבָא: מְנָא אָמִינָא לָהּ – דְּהָנְהוּ תְּרֵי שְׁטָרֵי דְּנָפְקִי בִּמְחוֹזָא, וּכְתִיב בְּהוּ: חֲבַי בַּר נַנַאי וְנַנַאי בַּר חֲבַי, וְאַגְבֵּי בְּהוּ רָבָא בַּר אֲבוּהּ זוּזֵי. וְהָא חֲבַי בַּר נַנַאי וְנַנַאי בַּר חֲבַי בִּמְחוֹזָא שְׁכִיחִי טוּבָא. וְאַבַּיֵי,

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?