Yevamot

since he acquires her by the betrothal;  and if she is the daughter of an Israelite [who was betrothed] to a priest, the betrothal cannot bestow the privilege upon her, owing to the ruling of 'Ulla. A DEAF-MUTE, for if [the woman] is the daughter of a priest [who was married] to [him  who is] an Israelite, he deprives her of the privilege, since he  acquired her by virtue of a Rabbinical enactment;  and if she is the daughter of an Israelite [who was married] to [him  who is] a priest, he cannot bestow the privilege upon her, because the All Merciful said, The purchase of his money,  while he  is not eligible to execute any kinyan. AND A BOY WHO IS NINE YEARS etc. This was assumed  to refer to the case of a yebamah who was awaiting the decision of a levir who was nine years and one day old.  Now, in what respect?  If in respect of depriving her  of the privilege,  a younger child would also equally deprive her of the privilege! And if in respect of bestowing the privilege,  a grownup levir also cannot bestow this privilege!  — Abaye replied: We are dealing here with a levir of the age of nine years and one day, who cohabited with his yebamah  who, according to Pentateuchal law, becomes his kinyan. Since it might have been assumed that, as Pentateuchally she becomes his kinyan, and his cohabitation also is legal, he should be entitled to bestow the privilege upon her, hence we were taught that the cohabitation of a boy who is nine years and one day old has been given the same validity only as that of a ma'amar by an adult.  Said Raba to him: If so,  [why] is it stated in the final clause, [EVEN WHEN] IT IS A MATTER OF DOUBT WHETHER THE BOY IS NINE YEARS AND ONE DAY OLD, OR NOT? If a boy who is certainly of the age of nine cannot bestow the privilege, is there any need to speak of a boy whose age is in doubt! — No, said Raba, [the Mishnah] deals with a boy of the age of nine years and one day belonging to one of the classes of disqualified persons who, by their cohabitation, deprive a woman  of the privilege of eating terumah;  as it was taught: An Ammonite,  a Moabite,  an Egyptian,  or an Idumean  proselyte, a Cuthean,  a nathin,  a halal  or a bastard, of the age of nine years and one day, who cohabits with the daughter of a priests of a Levite or of an Israelite, disqualifies her.  But since it is stated in the final clause,  'If they are not fit to enter the assembly of Israel they render [a woman] unfit', it may be inferred that the first clause does not deal with such disqualified persons! — The first clause speaks of those who are disqualified to enter the assembly, while the latter clause speaks of those who are disqualified to marry the daughter of a priest. [To turn to] the main text:  An Ammonite,  a Moabite,  an Egyptian or an Idumean  proselyte, a Cuthean,  a nathin,  a halal  or a bastard, of the age of nine years and one day, who cohabits with the daughter of a priest, of a Levite or of an Israelite disqualifies her.  R. Jose said: Anyone whose children are disqualified causes disqualification;  he whose children are not disqualified does not cause disqualification.  R. Simeon b. Gamaliel said: Whenever you may marry his daughter you may marry his widow,  and whenever you may not marry his daughter you may not marry his widow. Whence are these rulings  deduced? — Rab Judah replied in the name of Rab: Scripture stated, And if a priest's daughter be married unto to a strange man,  as soon as she has had connubial relations with a disqualified person  the latter disqualified her. But the text cited is surely required [for another] purpose, viz., that the All Merciful ordained that the daughter of a priest who was married to a layman  may not eat terumah! — That  may be deduced from the text, And is returned unto her father's house, as in her youth, she may eat of her father's bread.  Since the All Merciful ordained, And is returned unto her father's house … she may eat,  it follows that prior to that  she was not permitted to eat. But if [deduction were to be made] from that text,  [it may be objected] one might have assumed that as a negative precept  which is derived from a positive one  it has only the force of a positive precept,  hence did the All Merciful write the other text  to [indicate that it is] a negative precept! — [That it is] a negative precept may be deduced from, There shall no strange man  eat  of the holy things.