Yevamot

that he pays no fine  in the case of a seduced woman. R. Gebiha of Be Kathil  came and repeated the reported ruling  in the presence of R. Ashi, whereupon the other said to him: Surely both Rab and R. Johanan stated '[a High Priest] must not marry a woman who is adolescent  or "wounded",  but if he married her, the marriage is valid', which clearly proves [that he may continue to live with the woman because in any case] she would ultimately have become adolescent and would ultimately have been 'wounded' by living with  him; here also  [she should be permitted to live with him because] ultimately she would have become a be'ulah by living with  him! — This is a difficulty. 'He shall not marry a woman whom another man has outraged or seduced. If he did marry her, the child, said R. Eliezer  b.Jacob, is profaned; but the Sages said: The child is fit'.  Said R. Huna in the name of Rab: The halachah is in agreement with R. Eliezer b. Jacob; and so said R. Giddal in the name of Rab: The halachah is in agreement with R. Eliezer b. Jacob. Others say: R. Huna stated in the name of Rab. What is R. Eliezer b. Jacob's reason?  — He is of the same opinion as R. Eleazar.  But is the former of the same opinion as the latter? Surely we have an established tradition that 'the teaching of R. Eliezer b. Jacob is small in quantity, but select',  while in this case R. Amram  stated that the halachah is not in accordance with R. Eleazar!  — This is a difficulty. R. Ashi explained: They  differ [on the question whether the offspring] of a union forbidden by a positive commandment  is deemed to be a halal. R. Eliezer b. Jacob is of the opinion [that the offspring] of a union forbidden by a positive commandment is deemed to be a halal while the Rabbis are of the opinion that the offspring of a union forbidden by a positive commandment is no halal. What is R. Eliezer b. Jacob's reason? — Because it is written, A widow, or one divorced, or a profaned woman, or a harlot, these shall he not take,' but a virgin etc.,  and this is followed by the Scriptural injunction, And he shall not profane  his seed among his people,  which refers to all.  And the Rabbis?  — [By the expression] these  the context is broken up.  But R. Eliezer b. Jacob maintains that the expression, these,  serves the purpose of excluding the menstruant. Whose view is represented in the following statement wherein it was taught: [Only the offspring] of these  is to be regarded a halal but no offspring of a menstruant is to be deemed a halal.  — Whose view? That of R. Eliezer b. Jacob. But on the view of R. Eliezer b. Jacob, the expression these  should have been written at the end!  — This is a difficulty. Our Rabbis taught: For a betrothed sister,  R. Meir and R. Judah said, [a common priest]  may defile himself.  R. Jose and R. Simeon said: He may not defile himself for her. For [a sister who was] outraged or seduced, all agree that he may not defile himself.  As to one 'wounded',  R. Simeon says he may not defile himself for her; for R. Simeon maintains that he may defile himself for one who is fit for a High Priest,  but he may not defile himself for one who is not fit for a High Priest.  For one who is adolescent, all agree  that he may defile himself. What is R. Meir's and R. Judah's reason? — They make the following exposition: And for his sister a virgin,  excludes one who had been outraged or seduced.  It might be assumed that one who was 'wounded' is also to be excluded.  Hence it was specifically stated, That hath had no husband,  only she whose condition is due to a man [is excluded]  but not one  whose condition is not due to a man. That is near,  includes a betrothed [sister]; unto him,  includes a sister who is adolescent. What need was there for a Scriptural text in this case?  Surely R. Meir stated, 'virgin implies even [one who retains] some of her virginity'!  — It was required, because it might have been assumed that the expression of virgin  shall be deduced from virgin elsewhere;  as there it refers to a na'arah  only, so here also it refers to a na'arah  only, hence we were taught [that the case here is different]. And what are the reasons of R. Jose and R. Simeon? — They make the following exposition: And for his sister a virgin,  excludes one who has been outraged, seduced or wounded;  that hath had no,  excludes one who is betrothed; that is near,  includes a betrothed who had been divorced; unto him,  includes one who is adolescent. 'That is near, includes a betrothed who had been divorced';