According to Rabbi Meir, who says that betrothal to a priest disqualifies a woman who is unfit to marry him from partaking of teruma even if she is the daughter of a priest, entering the wedding canopy with a priest also disqualifies her. Conversely, according to Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon, who say that betrothal does not disqualify her, entering the wedding canopy also does not disqualify her.

The Gemara refutes this claim: And from where do we know that these tanna’im would apply their opinions with regard to betrothal to entering the wedding canopy? Perhaps Rabbi Meir only stated his opinion there, with regard to betrothal, which acquires her. However, in the case of a wedding canopy, which does not acquire her, no, she is not disqualified.

Alternatively, perhaps Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon stated their opinion only there, with regard to betrothal, as it is not close to an act of sexual intercourse. However, with regard to entering the wedding canopy, which is close to an act of sexual intercourse, as it is the place where the bride and groom are secluded together and symbolizes the woman’s entrance into her husband’s home, it is possible that it also disqualifies her from partaking of teruma.

Rather, if it can be said that this issue was already discussed by earlier Sages, it was in the dispute between these other tanna’im, as it is taught in a baraita: If they married one another, i.e., either a woman who is fit or a woman who is unfit married a priest, or they entered the wedding canopy and did not yet have intercourse with him, they are entitled to eat of his food and to partake of teruma.

The Gemara interrupts its presentation of the baraita to examine its wording. The fact that the baraita mentions a case where they entered the wedding canopy but did not yet have intercourse proves by inference that the earlier case, where they married, is referring to actual marriage. However, this is difficult because if they were actually married and had engaged in intercourse, the woman who was unfit to marry a priest is certainly disqualified from partaking of teruma due to the prohibited act of intercourse.

Rather, is it not that the baraita is referring to a single case: Where they were married, and they entered the canopy, and had not had intercourse? And it is taught in the baraita that they are entitled to partake of his food and to partake of teruma. This indicates that entrance into the wedding canopy does not disqualify a woman who is unfit to marry a priest from eating teruma, although the act of intercourse does.

The baraita continues: Conversely, Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka, says: Any woman whose act of intercourse entitles her to partake of teruma, her wedding canopy also entitles her to partake of teruma; and any woman whose act of intercourse does not entitle her to partake of teruma, her wedding canopy also does not entitle her to partake of teruma. Consequently, it appears that the tanna’im cited in this baraita disagree over the very question of whether the entry of a priest and a woman unfit to marry him into the wedding canopy has legal significance.

The Gemara refutes this claim: From where do we know that this is correct? Perhaps Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka, holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who said that in the case of the betrothal of a woman unfit for a priest she may not partake of teruma?

The Gemara expresses surprise: According to this suggestion, this expression in the baraita is difficult: Any woman whose act of intercourse does not entitle her to partake of teruma, her wedding canopy also does not entitle her to partake of teruma. It should have said: Any woman whose act of intercourse does not entitle her to partake of teruma, her betrothal money also does not entitle her to partake of teruma, as it was the betrothal that disqualified her. The Gemara counters this argument: Perhaps it can be suggested that since the first tanna said his ruling with regard to a wedding canopy, Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka, also said his ruling with regard to a wedding canopy, even though he holds that she was already disqualified from the time of her betrothal.

§ Rav Amram said: This matter was said to us by Rav Sheshet, and he illuminated our eyes from the mishna, i.e., he demonstrated that the mishna serves as the basis for his opinion. Rav Sheshet’s statement was as follows: There is significance to a priest entering the wedding canopy with women who are unfit to marry a priest. And the tanna of the mishna also taught this halakha with regard to a sota (Sota 18a–b): When a sota is brought to the Temple to drink the bitter waters, she affirms the oath imposed on her by a priest that she has not committed adultery. The mishna explains that when she says amen, it is as though she herself states that: I did not go astray while betrothed, or married, or as a widow waiting for her yavam, or as a fully married woman.

The Gemara inquires: This case of a betrothed woman, what are the circumstances? If we say that he was jealous of her and warned her not to seclude herself with a particular man when she was betrothed, and he also causes her to drink the waters when she is betrothed, is a betrothed woman fit to drink the waters of a sota? Didn’t we learn in a mishna (Sota 23b): A betrothed woman and a widow waiting for her yavam do not drink, as the halakha of the sota waters applies only to married women; and they do not collect their marriage contract if they secluded themselves after being warned, as they have acted in a licentious fashion?

Rather, the case in the first mishna cited above is that he was jealous of her and warned her not to seclude herself with a particular man when she was betrothed, and she secluded herself with that man, and her husband causes her to drink when she is already married. However, in that case do the waters examine her? Isn’t it taught in a baraita with regard to the verse: “And the man shall be clear from iniquity, and that woman shall bear her iniquity” (Numbers 5:31), that when the man is clear of iniquity the waters examine his wife, but if the man is not clear of iniquity the waters do not examine his wife? By secluding herself with the other man when she was betrothed, the woman rendered herself forbidden to her husband. If he then married her, he cannot be described as clear of iniquity, and therefore the sota waters are ineffective.

Rather, it must be that he was jealous of her when she was betrothed, and she secluded herself with the other man anyway, and she had entered the wedding canopy but did not yet have intercourse with her husband when he brought her to the priest. Consequently, she is made to drink the sota waters as a married woman, and her husband has not committed a transgression, as he has not had intercourse with her. Learn from this that there is significance to a priest entering the wedding canopy with women who are unfit to marry a priest, as demonstrated by the fact that the sota waters will examine her in these circumstances.

Rava said: Do you hold that this baraita is sufficiently accurate to rely upon? But when Rabbi Aḥa bar Ḥanina came from the South, he came with this baraita in hand: The verse states with regard to the oath of the sota: “And some man has lain with you besides your husband” (Numbers 5:20), which indicates that it applies 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. Consequently, in the case under discussion, drinking the sota waters would not be effective.

Rami bar Ḥama said: You find it in a case such as where her betrothed had intercourse with her licentiously when she was a betrothed woman in her father’s house. Since the act of intercourse was committed licentiously rather than for the purpose of consummating the marriage, the woman is still considered betrothed. Subsequently, her betrothed warned her not to seclude herself with a particular man, and she disobeyed. Then, they entered the wedding canopy together, despite the fact that they are forbidden to one another. Once they entered the wedding canopy, the woman can be made to drink the bitter waters. This proves that there is significance to entering the wedding canopy with a woman that is unfit for one to marry.

The Gemara asks: If so, in the corresponding case with regard to a widow waiting for her yavam, in which the yavam had licentious intercourse with her in her father-in-law’s house,