Ketubot

also the fine [applies] when sale [applies]. But are these [maidens]  entitled to the fine! Why? Read here: 'and she shall be his wife', [that means] one who is fit to be his wife?  — Said Resh Lakish: [It is written:] 'maiden', 'maiden', 'the maiden'  once  [the word 'maiden' is necessary] for itself,  once to include [those maidens, the marrying of whom involves the transgression merely of] a plain prohibitory law,  and once to include [those maidens, the marrying of whom involves] a transgression punishable with kareth.  R. Papa said: [It is written:]  'virgin','virgin', 'the virgins'; once [the word 'virgin' is necessary] for itself,  once to include [those virgins, the marrying of whom involves the transgression merely of] a plain prohibitory law, and once to include [those virgins, the marrying of whom involves] a transgression punishable with kareth. Why does R. Papa not agree with Resh Lakish? — That [verse]  he requires for [the same teaching] as that of Abaye, for Abaye said: If he cohabited with her  and she died, he is free,  for it is said: 'And he shall give unto the father of he maiden';  [this means]: To the father of a maiden,  but not to the father of a dead [person].  And why did not Resh Lakish agree with R. Papa? — That [verse]  he requires for an analogy  for it is taught: [[t is written:] — 'he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins,  [this means that] this  shall be like the dowry of virgins,  and the dowry of virgins shall be like this.  But Resh Lakish also requires it  for [the same teaching] as that of Abaye, and R. Papa also requires it  for the analogy?  — Take therefore six words:  'maiden', 'maiden', 'the maiden', 'virgin', 'virgins', 'the virgins': Two [are necessary] for themselves,  one for the teaching of Abaye, and one for the analogy, [and] two remain over: one to include [those maidens, the marrying of whom involves the transgression] of a plain prohibitory law, and one to include [those maidens, the marrying of whom involves] a transgression punishable with kareth. This  [Mishnah] is to exclude [the view of] that Tanna.  For it has been taught: [It is written:] and she shall be his wife.  Simeon the Temanite says: [This means:] a woman who can become his wife;  R. Simeon b. Menassia says: [This means:] a woman who can remain his wife.  What difference is there between them?  — R. Zera said: The difference between them is with regard to a mamzereth and a nethinah. According to him who says that there must be the possibility of her 'becoming' his wife, here  also there is the possibility of her 'becoming' his wife.  And according to him who says that there must be the possibility of her remaining his wife, here  there is not the possibility of her remaining his wife.  But according to R. Akiba, who says: Marriage takes no effect when there is a prohibitory law against  it, what is the difference between them?  — There is a difference between them in the case of a widow who marries a high priest, and this according to R. Simai, for it is taught:  R. Simai says: Of all  R. Akiba makes mamzerim,  except [the issue of] a widow and a high priest, for the Torah says: 'he shall not take', and 'he shall not profane',  [this teaches that] he makes [his issue] profane,  but not mamzerim,  And according to R. Yeshebab, who says: Come and let us cry out against Akiba b. Joseph, who says: Whenever the marriage is forbidden in Israel  the child [of such marriage] is a mamzer,  what is the difference between them?  — The difference between them is