— This represents the view of R. Meir, while Rab holds the same view as R. Eleazar. If [Rab holds the same view] as R. Eleazar, what was the object of pointing to her previous carnal intercourse when [her prohibition] could have been inferred from the fact that she was a harlot, R. Eleazar having stated that an unmarried man who cohabited with an unmarried woman with no matrimonial intention renders her thereby a harlot! — R. Joseph replied: When, for instance, the woman was subjected to intercourse with a beast, where the reason of 'previous carnal intercourse' may be applied but not that of harlot.9 Said Abaye to him: Whatever you prefer [your reply cannot be upheld], If she is a be'ulah10 she must also be a harlot; and if she is not a harlot she cannot be a be'ulah either! And were you to reply: This case is similar to that of a wounded woman, [it may be pointed out] that if [the disqualification should be extended to] unnatural intercourse also, you will find no woman eligible to marry a [High Priest [since there is not one] who has not been in some way R. Shimi b. Hiyya stated: A woman who had intercourse with a beast is eligible to marry a priest.17 Likewise it was taught: A woman who had intercourse with that which is no human being, though she is in consequence subject to the penalty of stoning, is nevertheless permitted to marry a priest.20 When R. Dimi came he related: It once happened at Haitalu that while a young woman was sweeping the floor a village dog covered her from the rear, and Rabbi permitted her to marry a priest. Samuel said: Even a High Priest. But was there a High Priest in the days of Rabbi? — Rather, [Samuel meant]: Fit for a High Priest. Raba of Parzakaia said to R. Ashi: Whence is derived the following statement which the Rabbis made: Harlotry is not applicable to bestial intercourse? — It is written, Thou shalt not bring the hire of a harlot, or the price of a dog, and yet we learned that the hire of a dog29 and the price of a harlot are permitted because it is said, Even both these, two only but not four. Our Rabbis taught: [A High Priest] shall not marry the woman he himself has outraged or seduced. If, however, he married her, the marriage is valid. He shall not marry a woman whom another man has outraged or seduced. If he did marry her, the child, said R. Eliezer b. Jacob, is profaned: but the Sages said: The child is legitimate. 'If, however, he married her, the marriage is valid'. Said R. Huna in the name of Rab: But he must put her aside by a letter of divorce. What, then, [is the explanation] of the statement 'If, however, he married her, the marriage is valid'? — R. Aha b. Jacob replied: It was meant to imply ᵃᵇᶜᵈᵉᶠᵍʰⁱʲᵏˡᵐⁿᵒᵖᵠʳˢᵗᵘᵛʷˣʸᶻᵃᵃᵃᵇᵃᶜᵃᵈᵃᵉᵃᶠ