Yevamot

If Rabbi  has not taught it,  whence would R. Hiyya  know it! The first said to him: Surely we learned: A hackle for flax, whose teeth were broken off and two remained, is [susceptible to levitical] uncleanness,  but [if only] one [tooth remained,  it is levitically] clean.  All the teeth, however, if they were removed one by one are individually [susceptible to levitical] uncleanness.  A wool [comb] whose alternate teeth  are broken off is levitically clean.  If three consecutive  teeth, however, remained, it is susceptible to levitical uncleanness. If one of these was a side tooth,  [the comb] is levitically clean.  If two [teeth] were removed and someone used them as pincers, they are susceptible to levitical uncleanness. One [tooth also] that was adopted for [snuffing] the light,  or as a spool,  is susceptible to levitical uncleanness.  And we have it as a traditional ruling that the halachah is not in agreement with this Mishnah!  — The other replied, 'With the exception of this;  for both R. Johanan and Resh Lakish stated: This is not [an authoritative] Mishnah'. What is the reason? — R. Huna b. Manoah replied in the name of R. Idi son of R. Ika: Because the first clause is in contradiction to the second one. For at first it was stated that 'a wool comb whose alternate teeth are missing is levitically clean' from which it follows that if two consecutive teeth did remain it would be susceptible to uncleanness, while immediately afterwards it was stated, 'If three consecutive teeth, however, remained it is susceptible to levitical uncleanness' from which it follows that only three but not two! — What difficulty is this? It is possible that one  refers to the internal,  and the other  the external teeth! The contradiction, however, arises from the following:  It was taught first, 'all the teeth, however, if they were removed one by one are individually susceptible to levitical uncleanness' [implying], even though each tooth was not adapted [for the purpose]. Now read the final clause: 'One tooth that was adapted for snuffing the light, or as a spool, is susceptible to levitical uncleanness', [implying,] only when he adapted it but not when he did not adapt it! — Abaye replied: What is the difficulty? It is possible that the one [refers to a tooth] with a handle  and the other [to a tooth] without a handle! R. Papa replied: What is the difficulty? It is possible that the one refers to small,  and the other to thick teeth.  [The reason]  is rather because accurate scholars add this conclusion: 'These are the words of R. Simeon'. R. Hiyya b. Abin sent the following message: Betrothal may take place within the three months, and the practice [of the Sages]  is also in accordance with this ruling. And R. Eleazar, too, taught us the same law in the name of R. Hanina the Great: The greater part of the first month, the greater part of the third one, and the full middle month. Amemar permitted betrothal on the ninetieth day.  Said R. Ashi to Amemar: But, surely, both Rab and Samuel stated that the widow must wait three months exclusive of the day on which her husband died and exclusive of the day of her betrothal! — This ruling was stated in connection with a nursing mother; for both Rab and Samuel stated: She must wait twenty-four exclusive of the day on which the child was born and exclusive of the day of her betrothal.  Did not, however, a man once arrange a betrothal feast on the ninetieth days  and Raba spoilt his feast!  — That was a wedding feast. The law is that [a nursing mother] must wait twenty-four months, exclusive of the day on which the child was born and exclusive of the day on which she is to be betrothed. Similarly. One [who is not a nursing mother] must wait three months, exclusive of the day on which her husband died and exclusive of the day on which she is to be betrothed. EXCEPTING THE WIDOW etc. R. Hisda said: [Cannot the law  be deduced by inference] from major to minor?  If when washing of clothes is forbidden,  betrothal is permitted, how much more should betrothal be permitted when the washing of clothes is permitted!  What is it?  — We learned: During the week in which the Ninth of Ab occurs it is forbidden to cut the hair and to wash clothes. On the Thursday, however, this is permitted in honour of the Sabbath.  And [in connection with this Mishnah] it was taught: Before this time  the public must restrict their activities in commerce, building and plantings but it is permissible to betroth though not to marry, nor may any betrothal feast be held!  — That was taught in respect of the period before that time.  Said Raba, Even in respect of the 'period before that time'  [the law might be arrived at by inference from] major to minor: If where it is forbidden to trade it is permitted to betroth, how much more should betrothal be permitted where trade also is permitted! — Do not read, R. JOSE SAID: ALL [MARRIED] WOMEN  MAY BE BETROTHED but read, 'ALL MARRIED WOMEN  may be married'.