Yevamot

this woman also may eat. Whence [is this  proved]? Is it not possible that R. Eleazar and R. Simeon maintain [their opinion] only there because in other circumstances  he is entitled to confer the right of eating, but not here where he is never entitled to confer the right of eating!  And were you to reply that here also he  is entitled to confer upon the daughter of proselytes  the right of eating, surely [it may be retorted] this very question was addressed by R. Johanan to R. Oshaia  who gave him no answer! It was stated:  Abaye said,  Because  he is entitled to confer upon [his wife]  the right to eat [terumah] so long as he does not cohabit with her.  Raba said,  Because  he may confer the right of eating  [terumah] upon his Canaanitish bondmen and bondwomen. Abaye did not give the same explanation as Raba because matrimonial kinyan may be inferred from matrimonial kinyan, but matrimonial kinyan may not be inferred from the kinyan of slaves. And Raba does not give the same explanation as Abaye because there  it is different, since she has already been eating it previously.  And Abaye?  — [The argument], 'since she has already been eating' cannot be upheld;  for should you not admit this,  a daughter of an Israelite who was married to a priest who subsequently died should also be allowed to eat terumah since she has already been eating it! And Raba?  — There,  his kinyan had completely ceased;  here, however, his kinyan did not cease. [To turn to] the main text. R. Johanan enquired of R. Oshaia: If a priest who was wounded in the stones married the daughter of proselytes does he confer upon her the right of eating terumah? The other remained silent and made no reply at all. Later, another great man came and asked him a different question which he answered. And who was that man? Resh Lakish. Said R. Judah the Prince to R. Oshaia: Is not R. Johanan a great man?  The other replied: [No reply could be given] since he submitted a problem which has no solution. In accordance with whose view?  If according to R. Judah,  she is not entitled to eat terumah whether he  does or does not retain his holiness. For if he retains his holiness she may not eat since the Master said  'The daughter of a male proselyte is like the daughter of a male who is unfit for the priesthood';  and if he does not retain his holiness,  she may not eat either, since it has been said that the assembly of proselytes is called an 'assembly'!  If, however, according to R. Jose,  she is entitled to eat terumah whether he does or does not retain his holiness. For if he retains his holiness she may eat, since he  stated that even when a proselyte married a proselyte his daughter is eligible to marry a priest;  and if he does not retain his holiness, she may also eat since he  said that the assembly of proselytes is not called an 'assembly'!  It must rather be  in accordance with the view of the following Tanna. For we learned: R. Eliezer b. Jacob said, 'A woman who is the daughter of a proselyte must not be married to a priest unless her mother was of Israel',  And it is this that his question amounts to: Has only her eligibility  increased  and consequently she is entitled to eat terumah  or has perhaps her sanctity also increased  and consequently she is not permitted to eat? Come and hear: When R. Aha b Hinena arrived from the South, he came and brought a Baraitha with him: Whence is it deduced that if a priest, who is wounded in the stones, married the daughter of proselytes, he confers upon her the right to eat terumah? For it was stated, But if a priest buy any soul, the purchase of his money  etc.,  he may eat of it. Now, in accordance with whose view?  If it be suggested, 'according to R. Judah', surely [it may be retorted] he stated that whether he  does or does not retain his holiness she  is not permitted to eat.  And if  'in accordance with the view of R. Jose', what need [it may be asked] was there for a Scriptural text? Surely, he  stated that whether he  does or does not retain his holiness she  is permitted to eat! Must it not [consequently be assumed that it  is] in accordance with the view of R. Eliezer b. Jacob? And so it may be inferred that only her eligibility  had been increased and that she is consequently permitted to eat. This proves it. It was stated: Rab said,