Gittin 25A

קטן ואנפיליא ⁠– פסולות ואין פוסלות.

However, if the yavam was a minor, or if the yevama performed ḥalitza while he was wearing a soft shoe made of cloth [anpileya] and not the shoe used for ḥalitza, then these acts of ḥalitza are invalid, and in these cases they do not disqualify her from entering into levirate marriage.

זעירי אמר: כולן אין פוסלין, חוץ מן האחרון.

The Talmud quotes another opinion with regard to the question of which of the bills of divorce mentioned in the Mishnah would disqualify the woman from marrying a priest. Ze’eiri says: Reception of any of the bills of divorce mentioned in the Mishnah does not disqualify the woman from marrying a priest except in the final case, where the husband instructed the scribe to write a bill of divorce for one of his wives and explained that he would later decide which wife would be given the bill of divorce.

וכן אמר רב אסי: כולן אין פוסלין, חוץ מן האחרון. ורבי יוחנן אמר: אף אחרון נמי אינו פוסל.

And similarly, Rav Asi says: Reception of any of the bills of divorce mentioned in the Mishnah does not disqualify the woman from marrying a priest except in the final case. But R' Yoḥanan says: Even in the final case, that bill of divorce does not disqualify her from marrying a priest as well, as even that bill of divorce is not a bill of divorce at all. According to R' Yoḥanan, there is no concern that retroactive clarification will determine that the bill of divorce was written for the sake of the woman who received it, while the amora’im who hold that the woman is disqualified from marrying a priest in the final case of the Mishnah regard the efficacy of retroactive clarification to be uncertain.