Yevamot

AND CHILDREN HE SHALL NOT MARRY A WOMAN INCAPABLE OF PROCREATION, SINCE SUCH [IS INCLUDED IN THE TERM OF] HARLOT MENTIONED IN THE TORAH. Since priests only were commanded concerning the harlot while Israelites were not so commanded, therefore PRIEST only was mentioned. Said R. Huna: What is R. Judah's reason? — Since it is written, And they shall eat, and not have enough, they shall commit harlotry and shall not increase,  any cohabitation which results in no increase is nothing but meretricious intercourse. It was taught: R. Eliezer stated, A priest shall not marry a minor. Said R. Hisda to Rabbah: Go and consider this matter,  for in the evening R. Huna will question you on the subject. When he went out he considered the point [and came to the conclusion that] R. Eliezer was of the same opinion as R. Meir and also of the same Opinion as R. Judah. 'He is of the same opinion as R. Meir' who takes exceptional cases  into consideration;  and 'also of the same opinion as R. Judah', who holds that a woman incapable of procreation is regarded as a harlot.  But does he  hold the same opinion as R. Meir? Surely it was taught: A minor, whether male or female, may neither perform, nor submit to halizah, nor contract levirate marriage; so R; Meir. They said to R. Meir: You spoke well [when you ruled], may neither perform, nor submit to halizah', since in the Pentateuchal section  man was written,  and we also draw a comparison between woman and man.  What, however, is the reason why they may not contract levirate marriage? He replied: Because a minor male might be found to be a saris;  a minor female might be found to be incapable of procreation; and thus the law of incest would be violated.  And it was also taught: A minor female may contract the levirate marriage  but may not perform halizah;  so R. Eliezer! And does he hold the same opinion as R. Judah? Surely it was taught: Zonah  implies, as her name [indicates, a faithless wife];  so R. Eliezer. R. Akiba said: Zonah implies one who is a prostitute.  R. Mathia b. Heresh said: Even a woman whose husband, while going  to arrange for her drinking,  cohabited with her on the way,  is rendered a zonah. R. Judah said: Zonah implies one who is incapable of procreation.  And the Sages said: Zonah is none other than a female proselyte, a freed bondwoman, and one who has been subjected to any meretricious intercourse. R. Eleazar  said: An unmarried man who had intercourse with an unmarried woman, with no matrimonial intent, renders her thereby a zonah!  No, said R. Adda b. Ahabah, the reference here  is to  a High Priest. For when does he acquire her [as his lawful wife]? Only when she grows up;  but, then, she is already a be'ulah.  Said Raba:  What thoughtlessness!  If her father had arranged her betrothal, then [the High Priest] would have acquired her from that very moment;  and if she herself had accepted the betrothal, is this  then the view of R. Eliezer only  and not that of the Rabbis!  No, explained Raba, it  refers indeed to a common priest, but [the prohibition to marry the minor] is a precaution against the possibility of her seduction  while living with him. If so, [the same should apply to] an Israelite also! — The seduction of a minor is regarded as an outrage, and an outraged woman is permitted in the case of an Israelite.  R. Papa replied: [It  speaks] of a High Priest, and it represents the opinion of the following Tanna. For it was taught: A virgin;  as one might assume it to mean a minor, it was explicitly stated wife. If only 'wife' [had been written], it might have been assumed to mean one who is adolescent,  hence it was explicitly stated, 'a virgin'. How, then [is the text to be understood]? One who has emerged from her minority but has not yet attained adolescence. R. Nahman b. Isaac explained:  It is the opinion of the following Tanna. For it was taught: A virgin;  the only meaning of 'virgin' is damsel;  and so it is said in Scripture, And the damsel  was very fair to look upon, a virgin.  R. Eleazar said: An unmarried man who had intercourse with an unmarried woman, with no matrimonial intent, renders her thereby a zonah.' R. Amram said: The halachah is not in agreement with the opinion of R. Eleazar. MISHNAH. A MAN SHALL NOT ABSTAIN FROM THE PERFORMANCE OF THE DUTY OF THE PROPAGATION OF THE RACE  UNLESS HE ALREADY HAS CHILDREN. [AS TO THE NUMBER]. BETH SHAMMAI RULED: TWO MALES, AND BETH HILLEL RULED: MALE AND A FEMALE, FOR IT IS STATED IN SCRIPTURE, MALE AND FEMALE CREATED HE THEM. GEMARA. [This implies] if he has children, he may abstain from performing the duty of propagation but not from that of living with a wife.  This provides support for a statement R. Nahman made in the name of Samuel who ruled that although a man may have many children he must not remain without a wife, for it is said in the Scriptures, It is not good that the man should be alone. Others read: [This  implies] if he has children he may abstain from performing the duty of propagation and also from that of living with a wife. May it, then, be said that this presents an objection against the statement R. Nahman made in the name of Samuel?  — No; if he has no children he must marry a woman capable of procreation; and if he has children he may marry a woman who is incapable of procreation. What is the practical difference?  — In respect of selling a Scroll of the Law for the sake of children.  BETH SHAMMAI RULED: TWO MALES. What is Beth Shammai's reason? We make an inference from Moses, in connection with whom it is written, The sons of Moses: Gershom and Eliezer.  And Beth Hillel? — We infer from the creation of the world. Let Beth Shammai also infer from the creation of the world! — The possible cannot be inferred