Halakhah for Yevamot 117:14

היכי דמי אלימא בכדרכה מאי איריא משום אלמנה תיפוק ליה משום דהויא לה בעולה אלא לאו שלא כדרכה ומשום אלמנה אין משום בעולה לא

but not when in an unnatural manner.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The superfluous [H] (= in), in [H] excludes unnatural intercourse, whereby 'virginity' is not affected. ');">³²</span> R. Eleazar and R. Simeon, however, are of the opinion that virgin would have implied a perfect virgin; her virginity implies even [one who retains] only part of her virginity;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which includes the one who is adolescent. ');">³³</span> in her virginity implies only one whose entire virginity is intact,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Is permitted to be married by a High priest. ');">³⁴</span> irrespective of whether [previous intercourse with her was] of a natural or unnatural character.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even if it was unnatural she is forbidden, unless her virginity remained completely intact. Cf. supra n. 7. As, according to R. Eleazar and R. Simeon, one who is adolescent is permitted it was necessary to have the Scriptural text to exclude this case. According to R. Meir, however, who excludes one who is adolescent, there is no need any more to exclude this case which is easily inferred a minori ad majus from the former. ');">³⁵</span> Rab Judah stated in the name of Rab: A woman who was subjected to unnatural intercourse is disqualified from marrying a priest.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., a High Priest who is permitted to marry a virgin only. ');">³⁶</span> Raba raised an objection: And she shall be his wife,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXII, 29, referring to a virgin who had been outraged. ');">³⁷</span> applies to a woman eligible to marry him. This excludes [the marriage of] a widow<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' After her betrothal. ');">³⁸</span> to a High Priest,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If it was he who committed the outrage. ');">³⁹</span> of a divorced woman<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' After her betrothal. ');">³⁸</span> and a <i>haluzah</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' After her betrothal. ');">³⁸</span> to a common priest. Now, how is one to understand [the outrage]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If committed by a High Priest. ');">⁴⁰</span> If it be suggested that it was one of natural intercourse, what [it may be asked] was the object of pointing to her widowhood<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'on account of widow'. ');">⁴¹</span> when [her prohibition] could be inferred from the fact that she had &nbsp; &nbsp; had carnal intercourse with a man?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' With the High Priest himself, who is forbidden to marry an outraged or seduced woman even if he himself had committed the offence. ');">⁴²</span> Must it not consequently [be assumed to be] a case of unnatural intercourse; and <font>the only reason<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'yes'. ');">⁴³</span></font> [why the woman is forbidden<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To the High Priest. ');">⁴⁴</span> is] because she is a widow, and <font>not because she had had carnal intercourse!</font><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which proves that unnatural intercourse does not cause a woman to be forbidden to marry a High Priest. How then could Rab state that a woman in such circumstances is forbidden? ');">⁴⁵</span>

Sefer HaChinukh