Yevamot

Why then, do you call her 'a woman awaiting the decision of the levir' [when such a woman] is in fact his proper wife, since Rab had stated, 'kinyan is constituted in all respects'?  — [The Mishnah is] in accordance with the view of Samuel who stated, 'Kinyan is constituted only in respect of the things specified in the section'. Is not this  adduced only as a reason and support for the opinion of Rab?  And Rab, surely, had said that 'Kinyan is constituted in all respects'!  — Here we are concerned with a case where for instance he  addressed to her a ma'amar,  and it  represents the view of Beth Shammai who maintain that a ma'amar constitutes a perfect kinyan.  If so, she would be identical with the 'betrothed woman'!  — And according to your view, has not a 'married woman' and 'one taken [by the levir]' the same status?  But [the explanation must be that] 'a married woman' refers to one's own wife, and 'one taken [by the levir]' refers to that of another man.  So here also 'betrothed' means his own and 'a woman awaiting the decision of the levir', that of another. R. Papa said: It  represents the view of the following Tanna.  For it was taught: It is not permissible to warn a betrothed woman in order that she may be made to drink  while she is betrothed. She may, however, be warned in order that she may be made to drink when she is already married.  R. Nahman b. Isaac explained: By implication. R. Hanina sent [an instruction] in the name of R. Johanan: A levir who addressed a ma'amar to his yebamah, while he has a living brother, causes her disqualification from the eating of terumah  even if he is a priest and she the daughter of a priest.  According to whom?  If it be suggested, according to R. Meir, it is possible [it might be objected that] R. Meir said that one that is subject to an illegitimate cohabitation  is not permitted to eat terumah [only when the cohabitation is] Pentateuchally forbidden;  did he, however, say [that the same law holds when the prohibition is only] Rabbinical? [Is it], however, [suggested that it was made] according to R. Eleazar and R. Simeon? [It may be objected]: If the eating of terumah is permitted to one who is subject to a cohabitation which is pentateuchally forbidden, is there any need to speak of one which is only Rabbinically forbidden! When Rabin, however, came  he stated: Where a levir addressed a ma'amar to his yebamah, all  agree that she is permitted to eat terumah. If he has a profaned brother,  all  agree that she is not permitted to eat.  They only differ where he  gave her  a letter of divorce:  R. Johanan maintains that she may eat, and Resh Lakish maintains that she may not eat. 'R. Johanan maintains that she may eat', for even the statement of R. Meir who holds that she may not eat applies only to one subject of a Pentateuchally forbidden cohabitation; where, however, it is only Rabbinically forbidden she may eat. 'And Resh Lakish maintains that she may not eat' for even the statement of R. Eleazar and R. Simeon, who hold that she may eat, applies only to one who has elsewhere the right  to confer the privilege of eating, but not in this case,  since he has no right  to confer the privilege elsewhere. And should you suggest that here also he has the right  to confer the privilege of eating in the case where she returns,  [it may be retorted that] one who returns  severs her connection with him and resumes her relationship with her father's house;  but this woman  remains bound to him. IF THEY BECAME WIDOWS OR WERE DIVORCED etc. R. Hiyya b. Joseph enquired of Samuel: If a High priest betrothed a minor, who became adolescent  during her betrothal with him,