The discussion begins on the bottom of daf 95b with Raba said and ends on 96a at the new Mishnah"hagitel Gid Hanoshem"
It states in the text that a blind person can marry because they would recognize their mate through certain signs such as sound, smell, etc.
The problem becomes in a capital case where the statement of Rabbi Isaack ben Mesharishyea who holds that val;idty of recognition in testimony for identification of the criminal and could use this as a basis for the issuance of the death penality. I believe the Rambam holds this view on teh validty of recognition in a capital case. How can we reconcile this with the discussions in Senhedrin about the questioning of witness to make absolute sure they have the right information adn the right person coupled with teh bend over back built in protections to prevent the capital case from being decided against the defendent?
avrohom eliezar ha cohen, newtonville, mass. u.s.a.
Rebbi Yitzchak ben Mesharshiya does not say anything new as far as the testimony of Tevi'us Ayin; he merely is proving that it is better than Simanim. The Rishonim in Bava Metzia point out that Tevi'us Ayin is better than Simanim (for returning a lost article) because it is possible that two things could have the same Siman, or that someone could guess a Siman or have seen it previously, while Tevi'us Ayin is absolute recognition, and the only problem is the possibility that the person is lying. Obviously, when relying on witnesses, we are assuming that they are not lying, and as for recognition, it is the most positive identification, for no two are alike, and as long as there is no fear of the identifier lying (as in the case of Hashavas Aveidah where we only return the item based on Tevi'us Ayin to a Talmid Chacham), it is absolute.
Dov Zupnik