Musar for Yevamot 113:6
ורבא לא אמר כאביי שאני התם שכבר אכלה ואביי שכבר אכלה לא אמרינן דאי לא תימא הכי בת ישראל שניסת לכהן ומית תיכול שכבר אכלה ורבא התם פקע קניניה הכא לא פקע קניניה
— [The argument], 'since she has already been eating' cannot be upheld;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'we do not say'. ');"><sup>19</sup></span> for should you not admit this,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But insist on upholding Raba's distinction. ');"><sup>20</sup></span> a daughter of an Israelite who was married to a priest who subsequently died should also be allowed to eat <i>terumah</i> since she has already been eating it!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Prior to her husband's death. As in this case the argument is obviously untenable so it is untenable in the case of the incapacitated priest. ');"><sup>21</sup></span> And Raba?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' How can he advance an argument that is untenable in the case cited? ');"><sup>22</sup></span>