שׁוֹמֶרֶת יָבָם קָרֵית לָהּ?! אִשְׁתּוֹ מַעַלְיָא הִיא! דְּהָא אָמַר רַב: קָנָה לַכֹּל. כִּשְׁמוּאֵל דְּאָמַר: לֹא קָנָה אֶלָּא לַדְּבָרִים הָאֲמוּרִים בַּפָּרָשָׁה.

do you call her a widow waiting for her yavam ? Once they have engaged in intercourse, she is his proper wife, as Rav said that one who has intercourse with his yevama , even without intending to thereby perform levirate marriage, has acquired her for all matters. The Gemara responds: This is in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel, who said that he has acquired her only with regard to the matters stated in the chapter of levirate marriage, but not with regard to other matters, and therefore she is not considered his wife with regard to the halakhot of sota .

מִידֵי הוּא טַעֲמָא – אֶלָּא לְרַב, הָא אֲמַר רַב קָנָה לַכֹּל! הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן, כְּגוֹן דַּעֲבַד בָּהּ מַאֲמָר, וּבֵית שַׁמַּאי הִיא, דְּאָמְרִי: מַאֲמָר קוֹנֶה קִנְיָן גָּמוּר.

The Gemara responds: The only reason this proof was presented is to support the opinion of Rav, who is the one who holds that there is legal significance to a priest entering the wedding canopy with a woman who is unfit to marry him. Didn’t Rav say he has acquired her for all matters? The Gemara answers: With what are we dealing here? For example, a case where the yavam performed levirate betrothal with her and afterward had intercourse with her for the sake of promiscuity. And this is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai, who say: Levirate betrothal acquires a yevama in a full-fledged manner and removes the levirate bond. Therefore, when they have intercourse, they do not become fully married.

אִי הָכִי, הַיְינוּ אֲרוּסָה! וּלְטַעֲמִיךְ, נְשׂוּאָה וּכְנוּסָה לָאו חֲדָא מִילְּתָא הִיא? אֶלָּא: נְשׂוּאָה – דִּידֵיהּ, וּכְנוּסָה – דְּחַבְרֵיהּ. הָכָא נַמִי: אֲרוּסָה – דִּידֵיהּ, וְשׁוֹמֶרֶת יָבָם – דְּחַבְרֵיהּ.

The Gemara raises a difficulty: If so, the case of the yevama who was betrothed is the same as the case of a betrothed woman. What is the difference between the two cases? The Gemara responds: And according to your reasoning, are the examples in the mishna of a married woman and a fully married woman not a single matter? Rather, the mishna must be referring to two very similar cases, with the following difference: A married woman means his own wife and a fully married woman is referring to that of his fellow, i.e., his brother’s wife who became his wife through levirate marriage. Here too, the case of a betrothed woman is referring to his own wife and the case of a widow waiting for her yavam is that of his fellow, i.e., his yevama , who is now betrothed to him.

רַב פַּפָּא אֲמַר: הַאי תַּנָּא הוּא, דְּתַנְיָא: אֵין מְקַנִּין לָהּ לַאֲרוּסָה לְהַשְׁקוֹתָהּ כְּשֶׁהִיא אֲרוּסָה, אֲבָל מְקַנִּין אוֹתָהּ לְהַשְׁקוֹתָהּ כְּשֶׁהִיא נְשׂוּאָה.

Rav Pappa said: Rava’s question can be resolved in a manner unrelated to the question about a priest entering the wedding canopy with a woman unfit for him. The baraita he cited is in accordance with this tanna , who does not require the man to be clear of iniquity, as it is taught in a baraita : One cannot be jealous over a betrothed woman and warn her not to seclude herself with a particular man in order to cause her to drink the sota waters when she is betrothed, but one can be jealous over her to cause her to drink the sota waters when she is married, even if she secluded herself with the man when she was still betrothed.

רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק אֲמַר: עַל יְדֵי גִּלְגּוּל.

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: The question never arises at all, as the oath is formulated by means of extension. The woman cannot be forced to drink the sota waters for events that took place while she was betrothed. However, if she is obligated to drink due to events that took place when she was married, the oath may be extended to include any possible acts of infidelity when she was betrothed.

שָׁלַח רַב חֲנִינָא מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הָעוֹשֶׂה מַאֲמָר בִּיבִמְתּוֹ, [וְיֵשׁ לוֹ אָח], אֲפִילּוּ הוּא כֹּהֵן וְהִיא כֹּהֶנֶת – פְּסָלָהּ מִן הַתְּרוּמָה.

§ Rav Ḥanina sent in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan: One who performs levirate betrothal with his yevama and he has a brother, even if he is a priest and she is the daughter of a priest, he has disqualified her from partaking of teruma . By Torah law, the other brother may still have intercourse with her and thereby perform levirate marriage, but by rabbinic law only the brother who betrothed her may perform levirate marriage. Due to the fact that she is considered to be waiting for levirate marriage even vis-à-vis the brother who is rabbinically prohibited from marrying her, she is classified as a woman who is waiting for an invalid act of intercourse. Consequently, she may not partake of teruma until the consummation of the levirate marriage.

לְמַאן? אִילֵימָא לְרַבִּי מֵאִיר, אֵימַר דַּאֲמַר רַבִּי מֵאִיר מִשְׁתַּמֶּרֶת לְבִיאָה פְּסוּלָה לָא אָכְלָה – מִדְּאוֹרַיְיתָא, דְּרַבָּנַן מִי אֲמַר? וְאֶלָּא לְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, הָשְׁתָּא מִשְׁתַּמֶּרֶת לְבִיאָה פְּסוּלָהּ דְּאוֹרַיְיתָא אָכְלָה, דְּרַבָּנַן מִיבָּעֲיָא?

The Gemara asks: According to whom did Rabbi Yoḥanan make this statement? If we say it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, say that Rabbi Meir said that a woman who is reserved for an invalid act of intercourse may not eat teruma when the act of intercourse is prohibited by Torah law. However, if the act of intercourse is prohibited by rabbinic law, did Rabbi Meir actually say that the woman is disqualified from eating teruma ? Rather, if we say it is in accordance with the opinions of Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon, now that they hold that even a woman who is reserved for intercourse prohibited by Torah law may partake of teruma , is it necessary to state that she may partake of teruma if she is reserved for intercourse prohibited by rabbinic law ?

אֶלָּא כִּי אֲתָא רָבִין אֲמַר: עָשָׂה בָּהּ מַאֲמָר בִּיבִמְתּוֹ – דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל אָכְלָה, יֵשׁ לוֹ אָח חָלָל – דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל אֵינָהּ אוֹכֶלֶת. לֹא נֶחְלְקוּ אֶלָּא שֶׁנָּתַן לָהּ גֵּט, רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: אוֹכֶלֶת, רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר: אֵינָהּ אוֹכֶלֶת.

Rather, when Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael he said an accurate version of Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement: If a yavam who performed levirate betrothal with his yevama has a brother, all agree that the yevama may partake of teruma . If he has a brother who is a ḥalal , e.g., his mother was a divorcée and therefore unfit to marry his father, who was a priest, all agree that the yevama may not partake of teruma , as she is considered reserved for an invalid act of intercourse. They disagreed only in a case when he gave her a bill of divorce. Rabbi Yoḥanan said she may partake of teruma , as she is considered to have returned to her father’s house, while Reish Lakish said that she may not partake of teruma .

רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: אוֹכֶלֶת, אֲפִילּוּ לְרַבִּי מֵאִיר דְּאָמַר אֵינָהּ אוֹכֶלֶת – הָנֵי מִילֵּי מִשְׁתַּמֶּרֶת לְבִיאָה פְּסוּלָהּ דְּאוֹרַיְיתָא, אֲבָל דְּרַבָּנַן – אָכְלָה.

The Gemara analyzes the two opinions: Rabbi Yoḥanan said she may eat teruma because even according to Rabbi Meir, who said in the mishna that she may not partake of teruma , this applies only when she is waiting for intercourse that is invalid by Torah law, but if the intercourse is prohibited by rabbinic law, she may partake of teruma . In this case, since they have not yet performed ḥalitza , the levirate bond still applies by Torah law, but they are prohibited by rabbinic law from consummating the levirate marriage.

וְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אֲמַר: אֵינָהּ אוֹכֶלֶת, אֲפִילּוּ לְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן דְּאָמְרִי אוֹכֶלֶת – הָנֵי מִילֵּי דְּיֵשׁ לוֹ לְהַאֲכִיל בְּמָקוֹם אַחֵר, אֲבָל הָכָא, כֵּיוָן דְּאֵין לוֹ לְהַאֲכִיל בְּמָקוֹם אַחֵר – לָא.

And Reish Lakish said: She may not partake of teruma because even according to Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon, who say in the mishna that she may partake of teruma , this applies only to a case of betrothal, as a priest can entitle a woman to partake of teruma in another case via betrothal. But here, where he gave her a bill of divorce, since he cannot entitle a woman to partake of teruma in any other case by giving her a bill of divorce, no.

וְכִי תֵּימָא: הָכָא נַמִי יֵשׁ לוֹ לְהַאֲכִילָהּ בְּחוֹזֶרֶת – חוֹזֶרֶת פָּסְקָה מִינֵּיהּ, וּקְרוֹבָה לְבֵי נָשָׁא, אֲבָל הָא אֲגִידָא בֵּיהּ.

And lest you say here too, in the case of a bill of divorce, he can entitle her to partake of teruma when she returns to her father’s house, this case is different for the following reason: A woman who returns to her father’s house has been severed from her husband and she is close to her father’s house [ bei nasha ], and therefore she may once again partake of teruma on her father’s account. However, this yevama who has received a bill of divorce is still bound to her yavam until they perform ḥalitza , and she is therefore disqualified from eating teruma .

״נִתְאַרְמְלוּ אוֹ נִתְגָּרְשׁוּ״ וכו׳. בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר יוֹסֵף מִשְּׁמוּאֵל: כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל שֶׁקִּדֵּשׁ אֶת הַקְּטַנָּה וּבָגְרָה תַּחְתָּיו,

§ It was taught in the mishna that in the case of women who married priests despite the fact that they were unfit to do so, if they were widowed or divorced from that marriage, they are disqualified from eating teruma , but if they were widowed or divorced while they were only betrothed, they are fit to partake of teruma . Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Yosef raised a dilemma before Shmuel: In the case of a High Priest who betrothed a minor and she matured under him, i.e., while betrothed to him,