מתני׳ בוגרת ששהתה שנים עשר חדש ואלמנה שלשים יום רבי אליעזר אומר הואיל ובעלה חייב במזונותיה יפר וחכמים אומרים אין הבעל מיפר עד שתכנס לרשותו

mishna With regard to a grown woman who waited twelve months after her betrothal and the time arrived for her betrothed to marry her, or a widow who waited thirty days and the time arrived for her betrothed to marry her, Rabbi Eliezer says: Since her husband is already obligated to provide for her sustenance, as he is obligated to have married her by then, he can nullify her vows by himself, as if he were fully married to her. But the Rabbis say: The husband does not nullify her vows on his own until she enters his jurisdiction.

גמ׳ אמר רבה רבי אליעזר ומשנה ראשונה אמרו דבר אחד דתנן נותנין לבתולה שנים עשר חדש לפרנס עצמה הגיע שנים עשר חדש אוכלת משלו ואוכלת בתרומה אבל היבם אינו מאכיל בתרומה

GEMARA: Rabba says: Rabbi Eliezer and the initial version of the mishna said the same thing, as we learned in a mishna ( Ketubot 57a): A virgin is given twelve months from the time of her betrothal to prepare herself, i. e., to prepare her trousseau. If the end of the twelve-month period arrived, even if he has not married her, she partakes of his food, i. e., he is obligated to provide for her. And if she was betrothed to a priest, she partakes of teruma like a priest’s wife. However, a man, i. e., a priest, whose married brother died childless [yavam], does not enable the woman awaiting levirate marriage to him to partake of teruma until they are actually married.

עשתה ששה חדשים בפני הבעל וששה חדשים בפני היבם ואפילו כולן בפני הבעל חסר יום אחד או כולן בפני היבם חסר יום אחד אינה אוכלת בתרומה זו משנה ראשונה בית דין של אחריהם אמרו אין האשה אוכלת בתרומה עד שתכנס לחופה

If the woman completed six months of awaiting marriage under the aegis of the husband, and he died, and then she completed six months under the aegis of the yavam; or even if she completed all of those months under the aegis of the husband, less one day; or all of them under the aegis of the yavam less one day, she may not partake of teruma. This is the initial version of the mishna. However, a court that convened after them, in a later generation, said: The woman may not partake of teruma until she enters the marriage canopy, thereby finalizing the marriage. Rabbi Eliezer’s opinion that her husband can nullify her vows after the completion of the period allotted after the betrothal follows the initial version, which requires the husband to support her from that point forward.

אמר ליה אביי דלמא לא היא עד כאן לא קא אשמעינן משנה ראשונה אלא למיכל בתרומה דרבנן אבל נדרים דאורייתא אימא לא

Abaye said to him: Perhaps it is not so. The initial version of the mishna teaches us only about the permissibility of her partaking of teruma whose status is by rabbinic law, but with regard to vows, whose prohibitions have the force of Torah law, say that her betrothed cannot nullify them.

ועד כאן לא שמעת ליה לרבי אליעזר אלא גבי נדרים כדרב פנחס משמיה דרבא דאמר כל הנודרת על דעת בעלה היא נודרת אבל תרומה אפילו מדרבנן נמי לא אכלה

And perhaps you did not hear Rabbi Eliezer state his opinion that a betrothed woman is regarded as married only with regard to vows. Perhaps Rabbi Eliezer holds like that which Rav Pineḥas said in the name of Rava, who said: Any woman who takes a vow, takes a vow contingent upon the consent of her husband, since he provides her sustenance. Perhaps Rabbi Eliezer grants her betrothed authority over her vows only because she vows with his consent in mind, since he is now obligated to provide for her. But with regard to teruma, Rabbi Eliezer might hold that even if it is teruma by rabbinic law, she may not partake of it.