Yevamot

— 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,13  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,18  though she is in consequence subject to the penalty of stoning,19  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,25  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