Yevamot

— The practical difference between them arises in the case where [the husband] created  the discord. The question was raised: What [is the law in respect of] one witness in a case of discord? Is the reason why one witness is [elsewhere]  believed  that he would not tell a lie which is likely to be exposed.  and consequently he would here also tell no lie;  or is it possible that the reason why one witness is believed elsewhere  is that [the woman] herself makes careful enquiries and [only then] marries again; here, therefore, [his evidence should not be accepted] since, as there was discord between husband and wife,  she would not make careful enquiries and yet would marry again? — This remains undecided. R. JUDAH SAID: SHE IS NEVER etc. It was taught: They  said to R. Judah: According to your statement, only a woman of sound senses  would be allowed to marry again while an imbecile  would never be allowed to marry again! But the fact is that  the one as well as the other may be allowed to marry again. A woman  once came to Rab  Judah's Beth din. 'Mourn', they said to her, 'for your husband, rend your garments and loosen your hair'. Did they teach her to simulate!  — They themselves held the same view as the Rabbis,  but in order that he  also should allow her to marry they advised her to do so. MISHNAH. BETH HILLEL STATED: WE HAVE HEARD SUCH A TRADITION  ONLY IN RESPECT OF A WOMAN WHO CAME FROM THE HARVEST  AND [WHOSE HUSBAND DIED] IN THE SAME COUNTRY,  [THE CIRCUMSTANCES BEING THE SAME] AS THOSE OF A CASE THAT ONCE ACTUALLY HAPPENED. SAID BETH SHAMMAI TO THEM: [THE LAW IS] THE SAME WHETHER THE WOMAN CAME FROM THE HARVEST OR FROM THE OLIVE PICKING, OR FROM THE VINTAGE, OR FROM ONE COUNTRY TO ANOTHER, FOR THE SAGES SPOKE OF THE HARVEST ONLY [BECAUSE THE INCIDENT TO WHICH THEY REFERRED] OCCURRED THEN.  BETH HILLEL, THEREFORE, CHANGED THEIR VIEW [THENCEFORWARD] TO RULE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE OPINION OF BETH SHAMMAI. GEMARA. It was taught: Beth Shammai said to Beth Hillel, According to your View,  one would only know the law concerning  the wheat harvest;  whence, however, [the law concerning] the barley harvest? And, furthermore, one would only know the law in the case where  one harvested; whence, however, [the law in the case where] one held a vintage, picked olives, harvested dates, or picked figs? But [you must admit] it is only the original incident that occurred at harvest time and that the same law is applicable to all [the other seasons]. So here also [we maintain that] the incident occurred with [a husband who died] in the same country. and the same law is applicable to all [other countries]. And Beth Hillel?  — In the case of the same country. where people freely [move about].  she is afraid;  [coming. however]. from one country to another, since people do not freely [move about].  she is not afraid.  And Beth Shammai?  — Here  also caravans frequently [move about]. What was the original incident? — [It was that of] which Rab Judah spoke in the name of Samuel: It was the end of the wheat harvest when ten men went to reap their wheat and a serpent bit one of them and he died [of the wound]. His wife, thereupon, came and reported the incident to Beth din, who, having sent [to investigate]. found her statement to be true. At that time it was ordained: If a woman stated, 'My husband is dead', she may marry again; [if she said] 'My husband is dead [and left no issue]', she may contract the levirate marriage. Must it be suggested that R. Hanania b. Akabia  and the Rabbis differ on the same principle as that on which Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel differ? For it was taught: No man shall carry water of purification  and ashes of purification  across the Jordan on board a ship, nor may one stand on [the bank on] one side and throw them across to the other side, nor may one float them upon water nor may one carry them while riding  on a beast or on the back of another man unless his [own] feet were touching the [river] bed. He may, however, convey them across a bridge. [These laws are applicable] as well to the Jordan as to other rivers. R. Hanania b. Akabia  said: They  spoke  only of the Jordan and of [transport] on board a ship, as was the case in the original incident.  Must it, then, be assumed that the Rabbis  hold the same view as Beth Shammai  while R. Hanania b. Akabia holds the same view as Beth Hillel?  — The Rabbis can answer you: Our ruling agrees with the view  of Beth Hillel also; for Beth Hillel maintained their opinion  only there,  since [the woman is believed only because] she fears [to tell an untruth, and it is only] in a place that is near that she fears while in a distant one she does not fear. Here,  however, what matters it whether it is on the Jordan or on other rivers!  R. Hanania b. Akabia can also answer you: I may uphold my view even according to Beth Shammai; for Beth Shammai maintained their opinion  only there  because [a woman] makes careful enquiries  and [only then] marries again. Hence, what matters it whether the locality was near or far. Here,  however, [the prohibition] is due to an actual incident; hence it is only [against transport] on the Jordan and on board a ship, where the incident occurred, that the Rabbis enacted their preventive measure, but against other rivers where the incident did not occur the Rabbis enacted no preventive measure. What was the incident?  — [It was that] which Rab Judah related in the name of Rab: A man was once transporting Water of purification  and ashes of purification  across the Jordan on board a ship, and a piece of a corpse, of the size of an olive,  was found stuck in the bottom of the ship. At that time It was ordained: No man shall carry Water of purification and ashes of purification across the Jordan on board a ship. MISHNAH. BETH SHAMMAI RULED: SHE  IS PERMITTED TO MARRY AGAIN AND SHE RECEIVES HER KETHUBAH. BETH HILLEL, HOWEVER, RULED: SHE IS PERMITTED TO MARRY AGAIN BUT SHE DOES NOT RECEIVE HER KETHUBAH. SAID BETH SHAMMAI TO THEM: YOU HAVE PERMITTED [WHAT MIGHT BE] THE GRAVE OFFENCE OF ILLICIT INTERCOURSE,  SHALL WE NOT PERMIT [THE TAKING OF HER HUSBAND'S] MONEY WHICH IS OF LESS IMPORTANCE!  BETH HILLEL ANSWERED THEM: WE FIND