Yevamot

But that text is required for its own purpose!  The expression, 'There shall no strange man', is written twice.  But still is not this  required for the exposition of R. Jose b. Hanina? For R. Jose b. Hanina stated: There shall no strange man  implies, 'I have imposed upon you a prohibition concerning non-priests only but not concerning onan'!  — R. Jose b. Hanina's exposition may be deduced from the Scriptural use of the longer expression 'And there shall no strange man' instead of 'strange man'. But still is not this,  required for the following which was taught:  When she  returns,  she returns only to [the privilege of eating] terumah, but does not return to [the privilege of eating] the breast and shoulder.  And  R. Hisda stated in the name of Rabina b. R. Shila, 'What Scriptural text proves this? It is written, but if a priest's daughter be married unto a strange man, she shall not eat of the terumah of the holy things,  she must not eat of that which is set apart  from the holy things'!  — If so,  Scripture should have written. She shall not eat of the holy things'. why [then the longer expression], of the terumah of the holy things? Two deductions  may, consequently be made. We have now deduced  [the law relating to] a priest's daughter;  whence, however, is this deduced in respect of the daughter of a Levite or an Israelite? — As R. Abba stated in the name of Rab [that deduction is made from the Scriptural use of] 'But a daughter' [where only] 'daughter' [could have been used].  so here also [deduction is made from the use of] 'and a daughter' [where only] 'daughter' [could have been used].  In accordance with whose view?  Is it Only in accordance with that of R. Akiba who bases expositions on [superfluous] Wawin!  — It  may be said to have been made even according to the view of the Rabbis, because the entire Scriptural expression, And a daughter  is superfluous.  [Thus the disqualification] in respect of terumah has been proved;  whence, [however, is it deduced that the disqualification extends also] to the prohibition of marrying a priest?  — Has not the daughter of a Levite or of an Israelite been included  in respect of priestly marriage only? For, as regards terumah, neither of them is ever eligible to eat it. Are they never eligible?  Such eligibility surely occurs when [a mother]  eats terumah  by virtue of the rights of her son!  — [The case of a mother, who eats terumah] by virtue of the rights of her son, may be deduced by inference a minori ad majus: If the daughter of a priest who eats the terumah by virtue of her own sanctity becomes disqualified  how much more so the daughter of a Levite or of an Israelite who eats it only by virtue of the rights of her son.  [On the contrary], this [very point]  provides the reason:  A priest's daughter whose body is sacred is rightly disqualified,  this woman, however, whose own body is not sacred might not become disqualified!  — The fact is rather, that the prohibition  to marry a priest may be deduced a minori ad majus from a divorced woman: If a divorced woman who is permitted to eat terumah is nevertheless forbidden to marry a priest, how much more reason is there that such a woman  who is forbidden to eat terumah should be disqualified from marrying a priest. May a prohibition, however, be deduced by logical argument! This  is a mere elucidation [of the law]. Might it not be suggested [that the statement,] 'she had connubial relations with a disqualified person'  [refers to persons cohabitation with whom is] subject to the penalty of kareth!  — The All Merciful said, If … be married,  only those with whom marriage is valid;  with those who are subject to the penalty of kareth marriage is not valid.  If so,  no idolater or slave should cause disqualification!  — These cause disqualification in accordance with a ruling of R. Ishmael. For R. Johanan stated in the name of R. Ishmael: Whence is it deduced that if an idolater or a slave cohabits with the daughter of an Israelite, of a priest or of a Levite, he disqualifies her?  — It was stated in, But if a priest's daughter be a widow or divorced etc.,