Yevamot

my only path lies in your fields', but could such a plea be advanced here! And R. Jeremiah can tell you: I may uphold even the view of the Rabbis, for the Rabbis made their ruling there only because he can tell him, 'If you keep silence, well and good, and if not I will return the deeds to their original owners and you will have no chance to call them to law', but could such a plea be advanced here! Where a 'doubtful son'  and a levir came to claim their shares  in the estate of the grandfather,  the former  pleading, 'I am  the son of the deceased and half of the estate belongs, therefore, to me', while the levir pleads, 'You are my own son and you have, therefore, no share whatsoever', the levir's claim being a certainty  and that of the 'doubtful son' a doubtful one,  doubt may not supersede  a certainty. Where the 'doubtful son'  and the sons of the levir came to claim their shares  in the estate of their grandfather,  the former  pleading. 'I am  the son of the deceased and half of the estate is, therefore, mine'  while the sons of the levir plead, 'You are our brother and you have a share like one of us',  they receive the half which he concedes to them while he receives the third  which they concede to him, and thus a sixth  remains,  which, being property  of uncertain ownership, is to be equally divided. Where the grandfather  and the levir [claim their shares] in the estate of the 'doubtful son' or where the grandfather  and the 'doubtful son' [claim their shares] in the estate of the levir, the estate is to be regarded as money of uncertain ownership and is to be equally divided. MISHNAH. IF A WOMAN AWAITING [THE DECISION OF] THE LEVIR  CAME INTO THE POSSESSION OF  PROPERTY,  BETH SHAMMAI AND BETH HILLEL AGREE THAT SHE MAY SELL IT OR GIVE IT AWAY, AND THAT HER ACT IS LEGALLY VALID. IF SHE  DIED, WHAT SHALL BE DONE WITH HER KETHUBAH  AND WITH PROPERTY THAT COMES IN AND GOES OUT WITH HER?  BETH SHAMMAI SAID: THE HEIRS OF HER HUSBAND  ARE TO SHARE IT  WITH THE HEIRS OF HER FATHER;  AND BETH HILLEL SAID: THE PROPERTY IS TO REMAIN WITH THOSE IN WHOSE POSSESSION IT IS, [HENCE] THE KETHUBAH IS TO REMAIN IN THE POSSESSION OF THE HEIRS OF THE HUSBAND WHILE THE PROPERTY WHICH COMES IN AND GOES OUT WITH HER  REMAINS IN THE POSSESSION OF THE HEIRS OF HER FATHER.  WHERE HE MARRIED HER,  SHE IS DEEMED TO BE HIS WIFE IN EVERY RESPECT SAVE THAT HER KETHUBAH REMAINS A CHARGE ON HER FIRST HUSBAND'S ESTATE. GEMARA. Wherein does the first clause  in which there is no dispute between them  differ from the final clause  in which they  do dispute?  'Ulla replied: The first clause deals with a woman who became subject to the levirate marriage  while betrothed, and the final clause with one who became subject to the levirate marriage  while married. And 'Ulla is of the opinion that the levirate bond  of a betrothed woman renders her 'doubtfully betrothed'