Yevamot

the onlooker might assume that the extension was made in order to increase the volume of the water. Come and hear: R. Eleazar b. Zadok said: When I was learning Torah with R. Johanan the Horonite  I noticed that in the years of dearth he used to eat dry bread with salt. I went home and related it to my father, who said to me, 'Take some olives to him'. When I brought these to him and he observed that they were moist  he said to me, 'I eat no olives'.  I again went out and communicated the matter to my father, who said to me, 'Go tell him that the jar was broached,  only the lees had blocked up the breach';  and we learned: A jar containing pickled olives, Beth Shammai said, need not be broached;  but Beth Hillel say: It must be broached.  They admit, however, that where it had been broached and the lees had blocked up the holes, it is clean.  And though he  was a disciple of Shammai, he always conformed in practice  to the rulings of Beth Hillel. Now, if it be conceded that they  did act in accordance with their own rulings, one can well understand why his  action was worthy of note;  if, however, it were to be contended that they did not so act, in what respect was his conduct noteworthy! Come and hear: R. Joshua was asked, 'What is the law in relation to the rival of one's daughter'? He answered them, 'It is a question in dispute between Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel'. — 'But [he was asked] in accordance with whose ruling is the established law'? 'Why should you,' he said to them, 'put my head between two great mountains, between two great groups of disputants, aye, between Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel? I fear they might crush my head! I may testify to you, however, concerning two great families who flourished in Jerusalem, namely, the family of Beth Zebo'im of Ben 'Akmai and the family of Ben Kuppai of Ben Mekoshesh,  that they were descendants of rivals  and yet some of them were High Priests who ministered upon the altar'. Now, if it be conceded that they  acted [in accordance with their own rulings] it is quite intelligible why he said, 'I fear'.  If, however, it be suggested that they  did not so act, why did he say, 'I fear'!  But even if it be granted that they did act [according to their rulings], what [cause had he for saying,] 'I fear'? Surely R. Joshua said that a bastard was only he who was a descendant of one of those who are subject to capital punishments which are within the jurisdiction of the Beth din!  — Granted that he  was not a bastard, he is nevertheless tainted;  as may be deduced by inference a minori ad majus from the case of the widow: If the son of a widow  who is not forbidden to all  is nevertheless tainted,  [how much more so the son of a rival]  who is forbidden to all. They asked him concerning rivals and he answered them about the sons of the rivals! — They really asked him two questions: 'What is the law concerning the rivals? And if some ground could be found in their case in favour of the ruling of Beth Hillel, what is the law according to Beth Shammai in regard to the sons of the rivals, [who married]  in accordance with the ruling of Beth Hillel'?  What practical difference is there?  — That a solution may be found, according to Beth Hillel, for the question of the child  of a man who remarried his divorced wife.  Do we  apply the inference a minori ad majus, arguing thus: 'If the son of a widow who was married to a High Priest, who is not forbidden to all,  is nevertheless tainted,  how much more so the son of her  who is forbidden to all';  or is it possible to refute the argument, thus: 'The case of the widow is different because she herself is profaned'?  And he said to them, 'With reference to the rivals I am afraid;