וחזינהו לאלתר וקאמרי סימנין דלאו עלייהו סמכינן אלא אסימנים 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.
ההוא גברא דאפקיד שומשמי גבי חבריה אמר ליה הב לי שומשמי אמר ליה שקילתינהו והא כן וכן הויין ובחביתא רמיין א"ל דידך שקלתינהו והני אחריני נינהו § 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.
סבר רב חסדא למימר היינו שני תלמידי חכמים ולא אמרינן הנך אזלו לעלמא והני אחריני נינהו 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.
אמר ליה רבא מי דמי התם קאמרי סימנים הכא שומשמי מאי סימנא אית להו ודקאמר כן וכן הויין אימר חושבנא איתרמי 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.
א"ל מר קשישא בר רב חסדא לרב אשי ומי חיישינן שמא פינן והתנן מצא כלי וכתוב עליו קו"ף קרבן מ"ם מעשר דל"ת דמוע טי"ת טבל תי"ו תרומה שבשעת הסכנה היו כותבין תי"ו תחת תרומה 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.
א"ל רבינא לרב אשי ולא חיישינן שמא פינן אימא סיפא ר' יוסי אומר אפילו מצא חבית וכתוב עליה תרומה הרי אלו חולין שאני אומר אשתקד הוה מלא תרומה ופינה 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.
אלא דכולי עלמא חיישינן שמא פינן והכא בהא קמיפלגי מר סבר אם איתא דפינהו מיכפר הוה כפר ואידך אימר אישתלויי אישתלי אי נמי לפנחיא שבקיה: 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.
יצחק ריש גלותא בר אחתיה דרב ביבי הוה קאזיל מקורטבא לאספמיא ושכיב שלחו מהתם יצחק ריש גלותא בר אחתיה דרב ביבי הוה קאזיל מקורטבא לאספמיא ושכיב מי חיישינן לתרי יצחק או לא אביי אמר חיישינן רבא אמר לא חיישינן § 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.
אמר אביי מנא אמינא לה דההוא גיטא דאשתכח בנהרדעא וכתיב בצד קלוניא מתא אנא אנדרולינאי נהרדעא פטרית ותרכית ית פלונית אנתתי ושלחה אבוה דשמואל לקמיה דרבי יהודה נשיאה ושלח ליה תיבדק נהרדעא כולה 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.
ורבא אמר אם איתא יבדק כל העולם מיבעי ליה אלא משום כבודו דאבוה דשמואל הוא דשלח הכי 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.
אמר רבא מנא אמינא לה דהנהו תרי שטרי דנפקי במחוזא וכתיב בהו חבי בר ננאי וננאי בר חבי ואגבי בהו רבא בר אבוה זוזי והא חבי בר ננאי וננאי בר חבי במחוזא שכיחי טובא ואביי 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?