Yevamot 57A

הא נמי אכלה. ממאי? דלמא עד כאן לא קאמרי רבי אלעזר ורבי שמעון התם, אלא דיש לו להאכיל במקום אחר. אבל הכא, דאין לו להאכיל במקום אחר ⁠— לא.

this one may also partake of teruma until that time. The Talmud refutes this argument: From where do we know that this is correct? Perhaps R' Elazar and R' Shimon stated their opinion there only with regard to a priest whose status can entitle her to partake of teruma in another case, but here, in the case of a priest with crushed testicles, whose status cannot entitle her to partake of teruma in another case, as it is forbidden for him to marry a woman who was born Jewish, no, they did not state their opinion.

וכי תימא: הכא נמי יש לו להאכיל בבת גרים, והא מיבעיא בעא לה רבי יוחנן מרבי אושעיא, ולא פשיט ליה.

And if you say that here too, his status can at least entitle his wife to partake of teruma if he marries the daughter of converts, wasn’t it already raised as a dilemma by R' Yoḥanan before R' Oshaya whether the daughter of converts who married a priest with crushed testicles may partake of teruma, and he was unable to resolve it for him? Therefore, there is a difference between a priest with crushed testicles and other priests who betroth women who are disqualified by their sex.

איתמר, אביי אמר: הואיל ומאכילה בלא ידעה.

It was stated that Abaye said: Women betrothed to a priest with crushed testicles may eat teruma since his status entitles his wife to partake of teruma in a case where he has not known her. If a priest was properly married and then his testicles became crushed, as long as he has not known his wife, i.e., had sex with her, after that point in time, she may continue partaking of teruma as his wife.