Yerushalmi Yevamot 9:1 ירושלמי יבמות ט׳:א׳

MISHNAH: There exist women¹Women who are forbidden but not by an incest prohibition whose marriages are nevertheless valid, cf. Halakhah 2:3. permitted to their husbands but forbidden to their levirs, permitted to their levirs but forbidden to their husbands, permitted to both of them, or forbidden to both.
The following are permitted to their husbands but forbidden to their levirs: If a simple priest was betrothed²In the Babli: is married to. to a widow and has a brother who is High Priest, or a qualified man married a qualified woman and has a disqualified brother³In the Babli: If a desecrated[priest], married to a woman qualified for the priesthood, has a qualified brother., or an Israel married an Israelite woman and has a bastard brother, or a bastard married a bastard woman and has an Israel brother, [the women] are permitted to their husbands and forbidden for their levirs.

HALAKHAH: “There exist women permitted to their husbands,” etc. Rebbi Niḥa bar Sava asked before Rebbi Jonah: Why “married”? Even “betrothed”! Why a widow? even a virgin⁴The questions show that the Mishnah before the Amoraim was the Babylonian version and that the Mishnah in the Yerushalmi ms. and editio princeps is a version modified according to the discussion here.
The questions refer to the Cohen who has a brother who is High Priest. A widow is forbidden to the High Priest even if she is not a sister-in-law. The same questions are asked in the Babli, 84a.! Are these all? She and her co-wife⁵He holds that with a woman also the co-wife is forbidden; cf. Mishnah 2:3 and the commentary of Meïri, Bet Habeḥira, Yebamot, ed. Ḥ. Albeck, p. 89, Note עה.. I also have others: The co-wife of one suspected of adultery is permitted to her husband and forbidden to her levir⁶A woman formally charged by her husband as a possible adulteress is forbidden to her husband until she undergoes the ordeal described in Num.5:11–31 (Sifry Num. 8). If the husband dies before he can bring his suspected wife to the Temple, she cannot be married in levirate and neither can her co-wife but the suspicion of adultery of one wife has no bearing on the status of the co-wife in the marriage.. If his brother had slept with the sister of one who had performed ḥalîṣah with him, she is permitted to her husband and forbidden to her levir⁷Brother A had married the sister of a woman who had performed ḥalîṣah with brother B. If A dies childless, his widow is forbidden to B. However, this prohibition is purely rabbinical and its place should be in the discussion of Mishnah 5.. If a qualified [priest], married to a woman qualified for the priesthood, has a desecrated brother, she is permitted to her husband and forbidden to her levir⁸While a qualified woman is not forbidden to marry a desecrated or otherwise disqualified man (see the next paragraph) and could have married the disqualified brother in a first marriage, she cannot be married in levirate since her child would be barred from the priesthood and could not come “in place of the deceased” who was a priest. The widow therefore is forbidden to the disqualified brother by the incest prohibition of the sister-in-law.
The mention of this sentence here is not a scribal error as assumed by the commentaries.. This supports Rebbi Jonah, since Rebbi Jonah said, the groupings of Rebbi are not exhaustive⁹Accepted by the Babli, 84b..

“If a qualified [priest], married to a woman qualified for the priesthood, has a desecrated brother, she is permitted to her husband and forbidden to her levir.” Did not Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun say in the name of Rav that a proselyte, a freedman, and a disqualified priest are permitted priestly [wives]? So is the Mishnah: If a qualified [priest], married to a woman qualified for the priesthood, has a desecrated brother. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said in the name of Rav: A proselyte, a freedman, and a disqualified priest are permitted priestly [wives]. What is the reason? Qualified men are warned against disqualified women and disqualified men against qualified women but not disqualified women against qualified men nor qualified women against disqualified men. Did we not state: “they should not take, should not take”, which teaches that the woman is warned through the man? They wanted to say, qualified women against disqualified women but it is only disqualified women against qualified women¹⁰This paragraph is in very bad shape. It seems that it should be corrected as follows:.
“If a qualified [priest], married to a woman qualified for the priesthood, has a desecrated brother, she is permitted to her husband and forbidden to her levir.” Did not Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun say that a proselyte, a freedman, and a disqualified priest are permitted priestly [wives]¹¹Priestly women are not enjoined to stay in their priestly status. The Babli concurs, 84b, also in the name of Rav.? So is the Mishnah: If a desecrated [priest], married to a woman qualified for the priesthood, has a qualified brother¹²Since the wife is disabled for the priesthood by her marriage to the desecrated man, she is forbidden to the brother.. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said in the name of Rav: A proselyte, a freedman, and a disqualified priest are permitted priestly [wives]. What is the reason? Qualified men are warned against disqualified women but not disqualified women against qualified men nor qualified women against disqualified men. Did we not state¹³Babli 84b, Sifra Emor Pereq 1(12). The verse Lev. 21:7, “A promiscuous and a desecrated woman they should not take and a woman divorced from her husband they should not take…” The two prohibitions are interpreted as one for the man, not to take a disabled wife, and one for the woman, not to seduce a man into a forbidden marriage.: “they should not take, should not take”, which teaches that the woman is warned through the man? They wanted to say, qualified women against disqualified men but it is only disqualified women against qualified men¹⁴The clause “nor qualified women against disqualified men” is shown to be false..