Yevamot

Raba said so  in the evening, but on the following morning he retracted.  The other exclaimed, "So you have permitted;  would that you permitted also abdominal fat!"4 Now, what is the law here in respect of the pregnant, or nursing wife of another man who was married to a priest? Did the Rabbis make any provision for a priest  or not?' — The other  replied:  What a comparison!  [The distinction]  is well justified there;  since the Rabbis differ from R. Simeon b. Gamaliel in maintaining that the child is deemed to be sound even though he did not live long enough,  we may, in the case of a priest's wife, where no other course is open,  act in accordance with the view of the Rabbis.  Here,  however, in accordance with whose view could we act? If in accordance with that of R. Meir, he surely stated that he  must put her out and never remarry her! And if in accordance with the view of the Rabbis, they, surely, stated [that she must be sent away] by means of a letter of divorce! It was stated: [The case of the man who] betrothed a woman  within the three [months]  and fled, is one concerning which R. Aha and Rafram are at variance. One holds that the man is to be placed under the ban,  but the other holds that his flight is sufficient.  Such an incident once happened, and Rafram ruled,  'His flight is sufficient'. IF IT IS DOUBTFUL WHETHER IT IS A NINE-MONTHS CHILD etc. Said Raba to R. Nahman. Let the ruling be that one is to go by the majority of women, and the majority of women bear at nine months!  — The other replied: Our women bear at seven months. 'Are your women', the first retorted, 'the majority of the world'! — 'What I mean', the other replied, 'is this: Most women bear at nine months and a minority at seven, and the embryo in the case of every woman who bears at nine is recognizable after a third of the period of her pregnancy;  and in the case of this woman, since her embryo was not recognized after a third of the period of her pregnancy  [her presumption to belong to] the majority is impaired'. If in the case of every woman, however, who bears at nine the embryo is recognizable after a third of the period of her pregnancy. it is obvious that with this [woman], since her embryo had not been recognized after a third of the period of her pregnancy, it must be a seven-months child of the second  husband! — But say rather: When a woman bears at nine months, her embryo in most cases is recognizable after a third of her pregnancy. and with this woman, since her embryo was not recognized after a third of the period of her pregnancy, [her presumption to belong to] the majority is impaired. Our Rabbis taught: The first [child]  is fit to be a High priest,  and the second  is deemed a bastard owing to his doubtful origin.  R. Eliezer b. Jacob said: He is not of doubtful bastardy.  What does he  mean?  — Abaye replied: It is this that he meant, 'The first child  is fit to be a High priest  while the second  is one of doubtful bastardy  and is consequently forbidden to marry a bastard.  R. Eliezer b. Jacob  said: He is not one of doubtful bastardy but an assured bastard, and is consequently permitted to marry a bastard'. Raba replied: It is this that was meant: 'The first  is fit to be a High priest  and the second,  on account of his doubtful origin,  is deemed to be an assured bastard and is consequently permitted to marry a bastard; but R. Eliezer b. Jacob said: He cannot be deemed an assured bastard on account of his doubtful origin;  he is, however, regarded as one of doubtful bastardy and is consequently forbidden to marry a bastard.  And they  differ in [the interpretation of a ruling] of R. Eleazar. For we learned: 'R. Eleazar said, persons of confirmed illegitimacy may [intermarry] with others of confirmed illegitimacy, but those of confirmed illegitimacy may not intermarry with those of doubtful illegitimacy;  nor those of doubtful, with those of confirmed illegitimacy; nor those of doubtful, with others of doubtful illegitimacy. And the following are of doubtful legitimacy: The shethuki,  the asufi  and the Samaritan.  And [in connection with this] Rab Judah stated in the name of Rab, 'The halachah is in accordance with the ruling of R. Eleazar, but when I stated this in the presence of Samuel  he said to me, "Hillel taught that the following ten different genealogical classes went up from Babylon:  priests, Levites, Israelites, profaned priests,  proselytes, emancipated slaves, bastards, nethinim,  shetkuki  and asufi,  and all these may inter marry",  and you state that the halachah is in accordance with the ruling of R. Eleazar'!  Now Abaye upholds the opinion of Samuel who stated that the halachah is in agreement with the ruling of Hillel and consequently brings the ruling of R. Eliezer b. Jacob into harmony with the halachah so that there may be no contradiction between the one halachah and the other.  Raba, on the other hand, upholds the opinion of Rab who stated that the halachah is in agreement with the ruling of R. Eleazar, and so he brings the ruling of R. Eliezer b. Jacob into harmony with the halachah in order that there may be no contradiction