(Mishnah): An orphan, a Sheniyah (a relative forbidden mid'Rabanan) and an Ailonis (a girl who does not develop like a normal female) has no Kesuvah, [law of] Peiros [that if she is captured, her husband must redeem her, in exchange for his right to eats the Peros of her property], food, or Bala'os (remnants, or compensation for depreciation of property that she brought into the marriage):

If from the beginning he married her knowing that she is an Ailonis, she has a Kesuvah.

A widow married to a Kohen Gadol, a divorcee or Chalutzah to a regular Kohen, a Mamzeres or Nesinah to a Yisrael, and a Bas Yisrael to a Nasin or Mamzer - they have a Kesuvah.

(Gemara) Question: Granted, [we understand why] a Sheniyah and Ailonis have no Kesuvah. An orphan - why does she have no Kesuvah?

Answer (R. Chizkiyah citing R. Avahu citing R. Yochanan): It refers to an orphan [minor] who did Mi'un (decided to leave her mid'Rabanan marriage).

(R. Aibo bar Nagri citing R. Imi): [In forbidden marriages,] just like they fined her, so they fined him.

Question: For what matter [did they fine him]?

Answer: If he was Mekadesh her with a Litra of gold (a fortune), he loses everything.

(Mishnah): And not Peiros.

(R. Yirmeyah): He has only [right of] eating the Peros [of her property. He is not obligated to redeem her if she is captured, which was enacted in exchange for Peros, and he is not like her husband in any other way.]

Question #1 (R. Yosi Tzidoniya, to R. Yirmeyah - Beraisa - R. Yehoshua): The action of a minor takes effect. Her husband merits her Metzi'ah and earnings. The general rule is, he is like her husband in every way, just she can leave through Mi'un.

Question #2 (Mishnah): [One who marries a minor] merits her Metzi'ah and earnings and he can annul her vows.

Question: Rather, [what is the meaning of 'and not Peros'?

Answer: She cannot force him to return Peros that he ate. (This is a fine.)

(R. Yosah): Constantly, R. Heila told me 'teach that he inherits her (a Sheniyah) and [a Kohen] becomes Tamei for her'.

Question (R. Chiyah's Beraisa): One is Metamei for his Kosher wife. One is not Metamei for his Pasul wife.

Question (R. Avun, in front of R. Mana): Do slaves of Sheniyos (married to a Kohen) eat Terumah?

Answer (R. Mana): Be quiet, and this is good for you (your question shows that you think that Chachamim fined her. You erred; there is no source for this.) She eats. Do her slaves not eat?!

(Mishnah): A Get coerced through Yisrael is Kosher, and through Nochrim it is Pasul.

(Shmuel): It is Pasul, and it disqualifies to Kehunah.

(Shmuel): We coerce [divorce] only for cases [of a Torah Isur,] e.g. a widow to a Kohen Gadol, a divorcee or Chalutzah to a Kohen Hedyot. (This connotes that the Yerushalmi forbids a Chalutzah to a Kohen mid'Oraisa. HA'GAON RAV C. KANIEVSKY, SHLITA (Yevamos 5:4) was unsure about this; MAR'EH HA'PANIM there and KORBAN HA'EDAH (Yevamos 2:7 DH Aval) hold that even the Yerushalmi forbids only mid'Rabanan.)

Question: A Mishnah teaches Sheniyos (we force him to divorce her)!

Answer: Shmuel did not say 'a widow... a divorcee...' for this (to exclude Sheniyos, rather, to exclude one whose marriage was initially permitted, e.g. she was married 10 years without children).

Question (Mishnah): One who forbade his wife through [affirming her] vow not to benefit from him, up to 30 days he sets up someone to finance her. More than this, he must divorce her and pay a Kesuvah.

Answer: We learn [from there] that he must divorce her. Do we learn [from there] that we force him?!

Question: What is the difference between these (Sheniyos do not have a Kesuvah) and these (a widow to a Kohen Gadol, a divorcee...) have a Kesuvah?

Answer #1: These (the latter) are [forbidden] mid'Oraisa, and Torah laws do not need support, therefore they have a Kesuvah. These (the former) are [forbidden] mid'Rabanan, and mid'Rabanan laws need support, therefore [Chachamim fined them, and] they have no Kesuvah.

Answer #2: These (the latter) are penalized and so too their offspring [the wife becomes a Chalalah and the child becomes a Chalal], therefore they have a Kesuvah. These (the former) are are not penalized nor are their offspring, therefore [Chachamim fined them, and] they have no Kesuvah.

Question: What is the difference between these answers?

Answer: [They argue about] one who remarried his divorcee after she remarried. The one who says that these, since they are mid'Oraisa, therefore they have a Kesuvah - since [Machzir Gerushaso] is mid'Oraisa, therefore she has a Kesuvah;

According to those who say that these, their 'fine' is in themselves and in the child - this (Machzir Gerushaso), since there is no 'fine' in her or in the child, therefore she has no Kesuvah.

Opinion #1 (R. Yakov bar Acha citing R. Ze'irah, and R. Heila): [Amora'im] argue about [whether or not a Kohen Gadol married to a widow must provide her] food. R. Yochanan said that she has food;

R. Lazar: [Beis Din] tells him to divorce her, and you say so?!

Opinion #2 (Rabanan of the Yeshivah): They wanted to say that they argue about stipulations of the Kesuvah (that orphaned daughters are fed from the estate). R. Yochanan said that she has Tenai Kesuvah;

All agree that she is not fed. If they fined her heirs, all the more so [they fined] her! (The Kal v'Chomer is according to R. Lazar. This opinion holds that they argue only about Tenai Kesuvah; R. Yochanan agrees about food.)

The one who said (Opinion #1) that they argue about food, but Tenai Kesuvah, no - they fined her. They did not fine her heirs.