Yevamos - Daf 120
- אין מעידין אלא על פרצוף פנים עם החוטם
The next Mishnah states regarding identifying a dead body to permit the wife to remarry: אין מעידין אלא על פרצוף פנים עם החוטם אף על פי שיש סימנין בגופו ובכליו – They may not testify except upon seeing the form of the dead man’s face with the nose, even though there are identifying marks on the man’s body and on his clothing. The Gemara clarifies how much of the face must be identified, from what was taught in a Baraisa: פדחת ולא פרצוף פנים פרצוף פנים ולא פדחת אין מעידין – If witnesses only see a corpse’s forehead without the form of the face, or only the form of the face without the forehead, they may not testify, עד שיהו שניהם עם החוטם – until both are seen together with the nose. Abaye, or Rav Kahana, said: What is the passuk which supports this ruling? "הכרת פניהם ענתה בם" – The recognition of their faces testified to their identity. Rashi explains that testimony only is effective with regard to the face, not to the rest of the body. The Gemara brings an incident of Abba bar Marta, who was also known as Abba bar Manyumi, who owed money to members of the Reish Galusa’s household. He brought wax and attached it to a small rag and then attached it to his forehead, and when he passed by, they did not recognize him.
- Machlokes whether one can testify to the identify of a corpse based on a mole
Abaye attempts to resolve a contradiction between the Mishnah and a Baraisa whether simanim are considered reliable as a means of identification, by saying that the Baraisa that taught that they are, was the opinion of Rebbe Eliezer ben Mahavai, who considers them valid mid’Oraysa, and the Mishnah is the opinion of the Rabbanon, who do not consider them valid mid’Oraysa. For it was taught in a Baraisa regarding testifying about the identity of a corpse to permit the wife to remarry: אין מעידין על השומא – They may not testify regarding the identify of a corpse based on a mole. Rebbe Eliezer ben Mahavai says: מעידין – they may testify. This suggests that Rebbe Eliezer ben Mahavai holds סימנין דאורייתא – that simanim are valid mid’Oraysa and the Rabbanon hold סימנין דרבנן – are only valid mid’Rabbanon. Rava rejects Abaye’s interpretation and says that everyone agrees that simanim are valid mid’Oraysa, but here in the case of the mole they disagree בשומא מצויה בבן גילו – with a mole which is commonly found on the same part of the body as one’s ben gilo, which Rashi explains, is someone born at the same hour and therefore has the same mazal. The Rabbanon hold that a mole is commonly found on a ben gilo, and therefore is not a valid siman to identify the corpse, and Rebbe Eliezer ben Mahavai holds a mole is not commonly found. The Gemara brings alternative versions of Rava’s explanation.
- אין מעידין אפילו ראוהו...חיה אוכלת בו
The Mishnah stated: אין מעידין אלא עד שתצא נפשו – They may not testify that a man is dead until they see that his soul has departed, ואפילו ראוהו מגוייד וצלוב והחיה אוכלת בו – even though they saw him suffering from being hacked, which Rashi explains means cut by a sword, hanging from a gallows, or devoured by a wild beast. Rav Yehudah said in the name of Shmuel, regarding the wild beast, לא שנו אלא ממקום שאין נפשו יוצאה – they taught this only where the animal was seen eating from an area in the body from which his soul does not depart, referring to non-vital organs or limbs, אבל ממקום שנפשו יוצאה מעידין – but from a place where the soul departs, meaning, the vital organs such as the brain, heart, or intestines, they may testify.
