Explanation: This is because after this, it changes...

Distinction (R. Tam): This is only when there is only the face. If the entire body is intact, even if the forehead and nose are not recognized, he is recognized well through Simanim of the body.

Also, perhaps we say so only about Simanim, but through recognition, he is recognized well through Simanim of the body, since there is the entire body. This is even after several days.

When he is not wounded on the face, obviously one can recognize him even after several days, for he does not change so much.

It is known that it is recognized even after several days.

Even if it is true that when the face is wounded, we testify about him only within three days...

Since the body remained whole, and it is possible that it is within three days, e.g. when it is not know when he was killed, we do not attribute that it is specifically after three days.

Reference: R. Tam's Teshuvah is written in Sefer ha'Yashar.

Explanation: We require the forehead of the face. Therefore, we bring this verse, which says "recognition of the face proved about them", which connotes that we require recognition other than the face. (Aruch l'Ner asks how this shows that we require also the forehead. He answers based on the Zohar, that one's Aveiros are written on his forehead.)

Question: Rashi explained [that the verse teaches that recognition is based only on the face]. This is difficult, for in Bechoros (46b), we bring this [Drashah] on the Beraisa here (which require the forehead and face), and not on the Mishnah [which says that we testify only based on the face with the nose].

Strengthening of question: Also here it connotes that it refers only to the Beraisa, for it brings an episode in which one stuck [remnants of garments, via] wax, on his face, i.e. forehead.

Observation: The Yerushalmi here connotes that it refers to the nose.

Question: What is difficult? Perhaps here is different, for he recognizes the Get or wallet!

Even an Am ha'Aretz has recognition, like it says in Bava Basra (168a) "a Chacham who goes to be Mekadesh a woman should take an Am ha'Aretz with him" (to recognize the woman, lest they switch her at the time of Chupah. The Chacham does not recognize women so well);

He should be believed due to a Migo. He could say that he never lost it!

Answer #1: The case is, there are witnesses that he lost it, so he has no Migo.

Answer #2: The case is, someone else found it, and returns it through this Siman that it was tied to the pouch or wallet.

Distinction: Even if many [people] are found there, and if it had been found on the ground, we would be concerned for another Yosef ben Shimon...

Now that it was found amidst his Kelim, we are not concerned lest someone else put it there. Rather, he did.

Question: Like whom is the Beraisa of [a Get] found tied to a wallet?

Answer: Initially, we thought that someone else found it, like I explained. Therefore, we wanted to conclude from here that Simanim are mid'Oraisa;

However, now he holds that he found it himself, and recognizes the wallet.

Explanation #1: He is believed through a Migo, for he could have said that he never lost it;

Explanation #2: There are witnesses that the wallet or ring is his.

Explanation #3: [Saying that the Get was tied to] a wallet or ring is considered a Siman Muvhak. (All agree that one may rely on it.)

Implied question: When it is found tied to his Kelim, why aren't we concerned lest they were borrowed?

Answer: We can say that it discusses Kelim that it is not normal to lend them, like Rivan explained, that [then] we are not concerned for lending.

Question: When one found Peros in a Kli, in Bava Metzi'a (24b) it connotes that this is a Siman, and he returns it. Why aren't we concerned lest it was borrowed?

Answer: We are concerned for lending only regarding Isurim, but not regarding money.

Question: If so, what was the question here and there "how do we return a donkey through Simanim on the saddle? We should be concerned for lending!"

[This is not difficult, for] we are not concerned for lending regarding money!

Answer: It was obvious to him that even if mid'Oraisa we are concerned for lending, mid'Rabanan we are not concerned for lending for (i.e. to refrain from) returning an Aveidah.

Question: How do we learn from verses that we return a donkey through Simanim on the saddle? Mid'Oraisa we should be concerned for lending!

Answer: According to the conclusion, this is fine. We are not concerned for lending even regarding Isurim.

Explanation: [According to this answer,] really, we are not concerned for lending.

Question: In Gitin (27a), a Mishnah says that if one found [the Get] in a Chafisah or Deluskema (kinds of pouches), if he recognizes it, it is Kosher;

This means that he recognizes the Get. Why must he recognize the Get? Even if he does not recognize it, [it should] suffice that he recognizes the Chafisah or Deluskema, for we are not concerned for lending!

Answer: The Mishnah means that if he recognizes the Chafisah and Deluskema, that they are his, it is Kosher.

Implied question: Why did the Mishnah say ["if he recognizes it",] in the singular?

Answer: This is not difficult. (It was found in the Chafisah or Deluskema.)

Answer: Implied question: Chafisah is feminine! The Gemara explains there that "Chafisah Hi (it is, in the feminine) is a small pouch. (The Mishnah says Matz'o (he found it) in the masculine!)

Answer: It used the masculine due to Deluskema, which is masculine. A Tosefta says "I handed over to you 10 Deluskemos full (masculine) of documents."

Implied question: According to the first version, which is concerned for lending [why aren't we concerned for lending]?

Answer: The case is, we know that he lost it in a pouch. Therefore we are not concerned for lending. I will elaborate there with Hash-m's help.

Question: (How can we infer that one who is cut up cannot live?) The Mishnah says [also] "Goses", even though he [can] live! Most Gosesim die, and a minority live!

Also, a Mishnah says that one may not testify about a Goses [to say that he surely died]!

Answer #1: A Goses who is Meguyad (cut up), since he is Goses b'Yedei Adam (due to man's actions), cannot live;

In any case, it is proven that a Meguyad cannot live, since it did not teach "even a cut up Goses." (Anyone cut up cannot live, so he would not be called Goses.)

Answer #2 (Ri): Surely, it is obvious that the Meguyad of our Mishnah will die in the end, since he is cut up in a place that makes him a Tereifah, e.g. above the knee, like it connotes below;

However, it is not clear that he will die before we permit his wife to remarry.

Support: Now, it is a proper question from Meguyad and Goses. The Goses who is destined to die, he dies immediately. Likewise, also the Meguyad dies immediately, since he was taught with Goses.

Question: Without R. Shimon ben Elazar's opinion (that Meguyad can live), we can ask a contradiction between the Reisha and Seifa!

Answer: Initially, we held that there is no difficulty due to the Reisha and Seifa. We can say that the Reisha teaches that we do not testify immediately, and the Seifa permits her to marry after 12 months;

However, we cannot answer (resolve the Seifa with) R. Shimon ben Elazar's opinion.

Explanation: We ask against Shmuel, who considers him to be dead. Since he is dead, the one who killed him should be exiled!

We are thinking that the reason he is exiled is because he dies immediately, but if he would not die immediately, he would not be exiled at all;

Regarding exile it says "va'Yamos", which connotes to him (the Makshan) that he died immediately.

Now, he (the Makshan) holds unlike it says in Kesuvos (33b) that "v'Nikah ha'Makeh" refers to Shogeg, to exempt from exile [if the victim recovered and later died. The Makshan exempts whenever he did not die immediately!]

Implied question: A Mezid murderer is Chayav Misah even if the victim died only much later!

Answer: There is a difference between execution and exile, just like we distinguish between [one who killed] through a downward motion and an upward motion regarding exile (the latter is not exiled), but not regarding execution.

Suggestion: We should not exempt him because the wind confused him or he precipitated his death, since he died immediately!

Rejection: We did not yet know these reasons.

Explanation: This is only regarding exile, but not regarding execution, like I explained above.

Implied question: [We expound that if the victim walked on his stick,] "v'Nikah ha'Makeh" from exile;

Inference: If he did not walk on his stick, even if he lived a while before dying, the one who hit him is exiled!

Answer: We can say that this is when there is no confounding wind, e.g. in a marble house, and he did not quiver at all.