Yevamot

but, surely, R. Simeon said, 'He may defile himself for one who is fit for a High Priest, but may not defile himself for one who is not fit for a High Priest'!  — There  it is different, because the All Merciful has included her [by the expression] near.  If so, the 'wounded' also should be included! — Near  implies one and not two. And what [reason for this]  do you see? — To the body of the one something had been done while to that of the other nothing had been done. As to R. Jose, since his colleague  had left him,  it may be inferred that in respect of the 'wounded', he himself is of the same opinion as R. Meir.  Whence, however, does he derive it? — From That hath had no man. But deduction,  surely, had already been made  from this text! — One  is deduced from That hath had no and the other  from man. It was taught: R. Simeon b. Yohai stated: A proselyte who is under the age of three years and one day is permitted to marry a priest,13  for it is said, But all the women children that have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves,  and Phinehas15  surely was with them. And the Rabbis?  — [These were kept alive] as bondmen and bondwomen.  If so,  a proselyte whose age is three years and one day19  should also be permitted! — [The prohibition is to be explained] in accordance with R. Huna. For R. Huna pointed out a contradiction: It is written, Kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him,  but if she hath not known, save her alive; from this it may be inferred that children are to be kept alive whether they have known or have not known [a man]; and, on the other hand, it is also written, But all the women children, that have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves,  but do not spare them if they have known. Consequently  it must be said that Scripture speaks of one who is fit22  for cohabitation. It was also taught likewise: And every woman that hath known man;  Scripture speaks of one who is fit  for cohabitation. You say, 'Of one who is fit for cohabitation'; perhaps it is not so but of one who had actual intercourse? — As Scripture stated, But all women children, that have not known man by lying with him,  it must be concluded that Scripture speaks of one who is fit for cohabitation. R. Nahman said: Dropsy is a manifestation of lewdness. Similarly, it is said, And they found among the inhabitants of Jabesh-gilead four hundred young virgins, that had not known man by lying with him;  whence did they know it?  R. Kahana replied: They made them sit upon the mouth of a wine-cask. [Through anyone who had] had previous intercourse, the odour penetrated; through a virgin, its odour did not penetrate. They should have been made to pass before the frontplate!  — R. Kahana son of R. Nathan replied: It is written, for acceptance,  for acceptance but not for punishment. If so, the same should have applied at Midian also!  R. Ashi replied: It is written, 'unto them', implying unto them  for acceptance but not for punishment; unto idolaters,  however, even for punishment. R. Jacob b. Idi stated in the name of R. Joshua b. Levi: The halachah is in agreement with R. Simeon b. Yohai.  Said R. Zera to R. Jacob b. Idi: Did you hear this37  explicitly or did you learn it by a deduction? What [could be the] deduction? — As R. Joshua b. Levi related: There was a certain town in the Land of Israel the legitimacy of whose inhabitants was disputed, and Rabbi sent R. Romanos who conducted an enquiry and found in it the daughter of a proselyte who was under the age of three years and one day,38  and Rabbi declared her eligible to live with a priest.39  The other  replied:  I heard it explicitly. And what [matters it] if it  was learned by deduction?  — It is possible that there  it was different; since the marriage had already taken place he sanctioned it; for, indeed, both Rab and R. Johanan stated: A priest may not marry one who is adolescent or 'wounded', but if already married, he may continue to live with her. How now! There it is quite correct [to sanction the marriage since in any case] she would ultimately become adolescent while she  will be with him,  and she would also ultimately become a be'ulah while with him;  but here, would she ultimately become a harlot  while with him?  R. Safra taught [that he  arrived at it]  by deduction, and, having raised the difficulty,  answered it in the same way. A certain priest married a proselyte who was under the age of three years and one day. Said R. Nahman b. Isaac to him: What [do you mean by] this?  — The other replied: Because R. Jacob b. Idi stated in the name of R. Joshua b. Levi that the halachah is in agreement with R. Simeon b. Yohai.  'Go', the first said, 'and arrange for her release, or else I will pull R. Jacob b. Idi out of your ear'. It was taught: And so did R. Simeon b. Yohai state