Yevamot

perform the halizah  but do not marry any of the brothers'.  They had hardly time to conclude the matter before confusion set in. Said R. Simeon b. Gamaliel to them, 'What now could we do with previous rivals'!  Now, if you assume that they  acted [in accordance with their own rulings] one can understand why he said, 'What shall we do'.  If, however, you assume that they did not so act, what is the meaning of 'What shall we do'?  — R. Nahman b. Isaac replied: This  was required only in the case of the rival herself;  and this is the meaning of the objection 'what shall we do': 'How shall we, according to Beth Shammai, proceed with those rivals [who married  in accordance with the rulings] of Beth Hillel? Should they be asked to perform the halizah, they would become despised by their husbands; and should you say, "Let them be despised", [it could be retorted]. Her ways are ways of pleasantness and all her paths are peace'. Come and hear: R. Tarfon  said: Would that the rival of [my] daughter  were to fall to my lot  so that I could marry her!  — Read, 'that I could make her marry [another]'.  But he said, 'Would'!  — It  implies objection to the ordinance  of R. Johanan b.Nuri. Come and hear: It happened that R. Gamaliel's daughter was married to his brother Abba who died without issue, and that R. Gamaliel married her rival!  — But how do you understand this? Was R. Gamaliel  one of the disciples of Beth Shammai!  But [this is the explanation]: R. Gamaliel's daughter was different because she was incapable of procreation.  Since, however, it was stated in the final clause, 'Others say that R. Gamaliel's daughter was incapable of procreation' it may be inferred that the first Tanna is of the opinion that she was not incapable of procreation! — The difference between them  is the question whether he  knew her  defect  or not.  And if you wish I might say that the difference between them  is the case where he  married [the rival] first and subsequently divorced [his wife].  And if you wish I might say that the difference between them  is whether a stipulation  in the case of matrimonial intercourse is valid. R. Mesharsheya raised an objection: It once happened that R. Akiba gathered the fruit of an ethrog  on the first of Shebat  and subjected it to two tithes,  one  in accordance with the ruling of Beth Shammai  and the other  in accordance with the ruling of Beth Hillel.  This proves that they  did act [in accordance with their rulings!] — R. Akiba was uncertain of his tradition, not knowing whether Beth Hillel said the first of Shebat  or the fifteenth of Shebat. Mar Zutra raised an objection: It once happened that Shammai the Elder's daughter-in-law was confined with child  and he  broke an opening through the concrete of the ceiling and covered it above the bed with the proper festival roofing  for the sake of the child.  Does not this prove that they  did act [in accordance with their rulings]?  — In that case, any onlooker might assume that it was done in order to increase the ventilation. Mar Zutra raised an objection: It once happened with Jehu's Trough in Jerusalem, which was connected by means of a hole with a ritual bathing pool,  and in which  all ritual cleansing in Jerusalem was performed, that Beth Shammai sent and had the hole widened; for Beth Shammai maintain that the greater part [of the intervening wall] must be broken through.  But we have also learned that the combination of bathing pools  may be effected by a connecting tube of the size of the mouth-piece of a leather bottle in diameter and circumference,  viz., a tube in which two fingers may conveniently be turned round.  Does not this prove that they  did act [in accordance with their rulings]?  — There