A Forest Gump answer TB Yevamot 38-39

A long discussion lasting two dappim starting on TB Yevamot 38 and continuing through TB Yevamot 39 tries to reconcile the first half of the Mishnah where Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai agree to the second half of the Mishnah where Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai disagree. First the Mishna.

“With regard to a widow waiting for her yavam to either consummate a levirate marriage or perform ḥalitza with her, i.e., a yevama, to whom property was bequeathed: Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel both agree that she may sell or give away that property ab initio, and that if she did, the transfer is valid. Since she has only a levirate bond with the yavam, she retains total control of the property. This is in contrast to a betrothed woman, concerning whom Beit Hillel rule that she may not sell such property because her betrothed also has rights to it (Ketubot 78a).

If she died, what should be done with the money assured to her in her marriage contract by her deceased husband and with her property that enters and leaves the marriage with her, in which a husband only ever has a usufructuary interest? Beit Shammai say: The husband’s heirs, i.e., the yavam, who stands to inherit from the husband when he consummates the levirate marriage, should divide up the property together with her father’s heirs, i.e., the woman’s family. And Beit Hillel say: The property retains its previous ownership status. Therefore, money assured to her in her marriage contract remains in the possession of the husband’s heirs. Since it was to be paid from the husband’s own property, the money is retained by his estate and passes to his heirs. And her property that enters and leaves the marriage with her remains in the possession of the father’s heirs. Since those properties belonged to her, upon her death they are inherited by her father or his heirs.” (Sefaria.org translation)

The Gemara asks our question. “The Gemara asks: What is different about the first clause, concerning a yevama who is still alive, that Beit Shammai do not disagree with Beit Hillel that the woman has full possession of the property since there is only a levirate bond but no marriage, and what is different about the latter clause that Beit Shammai disagree with Beit Hillel and rule that the yavam does take a share of the property, which would imply that the levirate bond alone is sufficient to afford the yavam rights over her property?” (Sefaria.org translation)

Ulla explains the difference that the zikah, the bond, between the yavam and the yevamah is one degree lower than between a betrothed woman or a married woman and her original husband.

Rabba explains the difference between the first part of the Mishnah and the second part of the Mishnah is determined whether the yevamah is alive or not. She is alive in the first half, but dead in the second half.

“Abaye said: The first clause concerns a case in which property was bequeathed to her when she was still a widow waiting for her yavam to perform levirate marriage or ḥalitza, and the latter clause concerns a case in which property was bequeathed to her when she was still under, i.e., married to, her first husband, before he died.” (Sefaria.org translation)

Each explanation has his own set of difficulties. No definitive answer is given. I encourage you to study the daf to learn more and dig deeper into the topic. The Gemara after this long discussion concludes very much like Forest Gump when he’s done with a topic, “That’s all I have to say about that.” Or the words of the Gemara “The Gemara concludes: And there is nothing more to say concerning this matter,” (Sefaria.org translation)