Yevamot

Behold, however, [the prohibition against] defilement  which is a prohibition that is not equally applicable to all  and [yet the sole] reason [why it is inapplicable to woman is] because the All Merciful wrote The sons of Aaron  and not the daughters of Aaron; had, however, no such text been available  it would have been assumed that women also come under the same obligation. What is the reason? Obviously  because of the deduction Rab Judah reported in the name of Rab!  — No; this might have been deduced from They shall not take. Others Say:  [The prohibition in regard] to marrying had to be specified.  Since it might have been assumed that it  should be inferred from [that relating to] defilement,  therefore he taught us  [that women are subject to the same prohibition as men]. R. Papa and R. Huna son of R. Joshua once happened to be at Hinzebu,  the town of R. Idi b. Abin, when the following question was asked of them: Were women of legitimate [priestly] status forbidden to be married to men of tainted birth or not? R. Papa replied, 'You have learned it [in the following]. Ten different genealogical classes went up from Babylon:  Priests, Levites, Israelites, halalim,  proselytes, emancipated slaves, bastards, nethinim,  shethuki  and asufi.  Priests, Levites and Israelites may intermarry with one another. Levites, Israelites, halalim, proselytes and emancipated slaves may intermarry with one another. Proselytes, emancipated slaves, bastards, nethinim,  shethuki  and asufi  are permitted to intermarry with one another.'  That daughters of priests, however, [may be married to a] halal was not mentioned.  Said R. Huna son of R. Joshua to him: Only cases where the women may marry the men, and the men may marry the women were enumerated;  the case of the Priest, however,  was not mentioned, because a halalah, should he even desire to marry one, is forbidden to him.  When they came before R. Idi b. Abin he said to them, 'O, school-children! Thus said Rab Judah in the name of Rab: Women of legitimate [priestly] status were not forbidden to be married to men of illegitimate Status'. [IN RESPECT OF] RELATIVES OF THE SECOND GRADE [WHO ARE FORBIDDEN] BY THE ORDINANCES OF THE SCRIBES etc. The men of Bairi  enquired of R. Shesheth: Is a woman who is of the second grade of kinship to her husband but not to her levir entitled to claim her kethubah from the levir or not? [Do we say that] since a Master said that her kethubah  is a charge on the estate of her first husband  she has no [claim upon the levir];  or, possibly, since the Rabbis have ordained that wherever she is unable to obtain it from her first husband  [she may collect it] from the second, she  is entitled to claim it  [from the levir]? R. Shesheth replied, 'You have learned this: Her kethubah  is a charge upon the estate of her first husband, but if she was a relative of the second grade of kinship to her husband she receives nothing even from the levir. Does [the expression,  however,] imply that some [widows] do receive their  kethubah from the levir!  — There is a lacuna, and thus it is the correct reading:  Her kethubah  is a charge upon the estate of her first husband; and if she obtains nothing from the first, the Rabbis have ordained [that she is to receive it] from the second; but if she was a relative of the second grade of kinship to her husband she receives nothing even from the levir. R. Eleazar enquired of R. Johanan: Is a widow [who was married] to a High Priest, or a divorcee or a haluzah [who was married] to a common priest entitled to maintenance or not? How is this question to be understood? If [it is a case] where she still lives with him,  would she, when it is his duty to divorce her,  be entitled to receive maintenance!  — This question was necessary in the case  where he went to a country beyond the sea and she borrowed money wherewith to maintain herself;  it being desired to ascertain  whether, [owing to the fact that] maintenance  among the conditions of the kethubah, she is entitled to mainte nance just as she is entitled to the kethubah, or is she entitled to the kethubah only because she receives it and goes, but not to maintenance which might induce her to remain with him? — The other replied: She is not entitled to maintenance.  But, surely, it was taught: She is entitled to maintenance.  — That was taught In respect of [alimony] after [her husband's] death. Another reading:  He said to him, 'It was taught: She is entitled to maintenance'.  'Surely', [the other asked], 'it is his duty to divorce her!'  'But then', [the first retorted], 'it was taught: She is entitled to maintenance'!  — 'That', [the other replied], 'was taught in respect of [alimony] after his death'. Our Rabbis taught: A widow [who was married] to a High Priest, or a divorcee or haluzah [who was married] to a common priest is entitled to her kethubah, usufruct,  alimony and worn clothes,  but she becomes thereby unfit, and her child is unfit, and [the husband] is compelled to divorce her. Relatives of the second grade of kinship [who are forbidden] by the ordinances of scribes are entitled neither to kethubah, nor to usufruct,  nor to alimony  nor to worn clothes;  the woman remains fit and her child is fit; but [the husband] is compelled to divorce her. R. Simeon b. Eleazar said, 'Why was it ordained that a widow married to a High Priest is entitled to her kethubah? Because he becomes unfit  and she becomes unfit and wherever he becomes unfit and she becomes unfit