Yevamot

According to R. Meir who holds that the betrothal causes ineligibility, the bridal chamber  also causes ineligibility, while according to R. Eleazar and R. Simeon who maintain that betrothal causes no ineligibility the bridal chamber also causes no ineligibility. But whence [is this proved]? Is it not possible that R. Meir advanced his view only there, in respect of betrothal, whereby kinyan is effected, but not in respect of the bridal chamber whereby no kinyan is effected!  Or else: R. Eleazar and R. Simeon may have advanced their view there only, in respect of betrothal, since it is not close to the act of intercourse; but the bridal chamber which is close to the act of intercourse, may well cause ineligibility. But if anything can be said  [it is, that the question  depends] on the dispute between the following Tannaim: For it was taught, 'This class or that, [viz.,] eligible or ineligible women, who were married [to a priest], or who only entered [with him] into the bridal chamber without any intercourse having taken place, are entitled to sustenance from his estate and are also permitted to eat terumah'. 'Who only entered [etc.]' implies that 'were married' means that they were actually married!  Must it not [consequently be concluded that the meaning is], 'as, for instance,  when they entered the bridal chamber without any intercourse having taken place'? And yet it was stated that 'they are entitled to sustenance from his estate and are also permitted to eat terumah'.  R. Ishmael son of R. Johanan b. Beroka said: Any woman whose cohabitation entitles her to the eating of terumah is also entitled to the eating of it through her entry into the bridal chamber, and any woman upon whom cohabitation does not confer the right to eat terumah is not entitled through her entry into the bridal chamber also to the eating of it. Whence, [however, the proof]? Is it not possible that R. Ishmael son of R. Johanan b. Beroka is of the same opinion as R. Meir, who maintains that through betrothal alone a woman is not entitled to eat! — Instead, then, of the statement 'Any woman upon whom cohabitation does not confer the right to eat terumah is not entitled through her entry into the bridal chamber also to the eating of it', the statement should have run, 'Any woman upon whom cohabitation does not confer the right to eat terumah, is not entitled through her money  also to the eating of terumah'. But is it not possible that as the first Tanna spoke of the bridal chamber he also spoke of the bridal chamber! R. Amram stated, The following ruling was given to us by R. Shesheth and he threw light on the subject  from a Mishnah: The bridal chamber constitutes kinyan with ineligible women.  And the following Tanna taught the same thing:  'Amen  that I  have not gone aside  as a betrothed, as a married woman, as one awaiting the decision of the levir or as one taken [by the levir]'.  Now, how is one to imagine the case of the 'betrothed'? If it be suggested that she was one who was warned  while she was betrothed, and then she secluded herself  and is now made to drink  while she is still only betrothed; is a betrothed [it may be asked] subject to the drinking? Surely we learned: A betrothed or one awaiting the decision of a levir neither drinks  nor receives a kethubah!  Should it, however, [be suggested that she is one] who was warned while she was betrothed, and then she secluded herself,  and is now made to drink when she is already married; do the waters [it may be asked] test her? Surely it was taught: And the man shall be clear from iniquity,  only when the man is 'clear from iniquity' do the waters test his wife; when, however, the man is not 'clear from iniquity'  the waters do not test his wife!  Consequently [she  must be one] who was warned while she was betrothed and then she secluded herself,  and subsequently entered the bridal chamber but there was no cohabitation. Thus  it may be inferred that the bridal chamber alone constitutes kinyan  with ineligible women.  Said Raba: Do you think that this  is an authenticated statement?  Surely when R. Aha b. Hanina  arrived from the South, he came and brought a Baraitha with him: Besides thy husband,  only when the cohabitation of the husband preceded that of the adulterer, but not when the cohabitation of the adulterer preceded that of the husband! Rami b. Hama replied: This  is possible where, for instance, he  cohabited with her while she was only betrothed and still in the house of her father. Similarly in respect of the woman awaiting the decision of the levir  [it must obviously be a case] where the man cohabited with her in the house of her father-in-law!