Sotah 26b (כו:) — the Talmud in English

And we explain:

lest you say:

“became impure” and

“became impure”—

twice it is stated in the passage, and we expound:

one is stated

one

to prohibit her to her husband, and

one

to prohibit her

to the paramour.

The passage speaks only

where she becomes forbidden through this adultery,

through this act of adultery, to the man with whom she committed it;

but in this case,

the forbidden relations concerning which he warned her,

since she was already forbidden

to them even without the adultery,

let us say that the law of a sota does not

apply to them.

It teaches us

that the verse does not come to exclude relatives; rather, it teaches the basic law that she becomes forbidden to her paramour through the warning, when he is not a relative.

We learned in the Mishna:

except for a minor.

What is the reason? “And a

man

shall lie with her”—

the Merciful One states, and not a minor.

And one who is not a man,

as the Mishna teaches, that one may not warn her on account of him,

what is it meant to exclude?

If you say that it comes to exclude a shafuf,

a man who cannot attain an erection and cannot father children?

But did Shmuel not say: A shafuf is grounds for warning on his account, and he disqualifies a woman from teruma?

If the shafuf was one of those disqualified men who profane a woman, such as a gentile, slave, ḥalal, netin, or mamzer, and he had intercourse with the woman, she is disqualified from eating teruma.

And we inquire concerning this:

Is warning on his account obvious?

And we explain:

Lest you say: “

And a man shall lie with her with an emission of semen”—

the Merciful One states, and

the shafuf

is not capable of this; it teaches us

that even so, one may warn her on account of him.

We further inquire concerning Shmuel’s statement about a shafuf: “

and he disqualifies her from teruma”—

is this obvious!?

And we explain:

Lest you say: “

He shall not profane his offspring”—

the Merciful One states,

from which we learn that when a woman disqualified from marrying into the priesthood has intercourse with a koen, she is profaned through his intercourse. The phrase “he shall not profane” implies two acts of profanation, since it does not say “and he shall not profane”: one profanation applies to the woman and one to her offspring; and this applies specifically

when he has offspring to profane,

but a shafuf,

who has no offspring,

since he cannot emit semen,

does not profane; it teaches us

that nevertheless he profanes the woman and disqualifies her from teruma.

Thus, a shafuf is grounds for warning on his account, and it is impossible to say that the Mishna intends to exclude a shafuf!

And we explain:

Rather, it comes to exclude a gentile,

who is not included in the category of “man,” and one may not warn her on his account.

And we challenge this:

But did Rav Hamnuna not say: A gentile is grounds for warning on his account, and he disqualifies a woman from teruma?

And we inquire concerning this:

Is warning on his account obvious?

And we explain:

Lest you say:

“She became impure” and

“she became impure”—

twice: one for the husband and one for the paramour—

and specifically

where she becomes forbidden

to her paramour

through this adultery,

the law of a sota applies to her;

but in this case,

the gentile,

since she was already forbidden

to him even without the adultery,

let us say that they may not warn her

on his account.

It teaches us

that they may warn her even on his account. We further inquire concerning Rav Hamnuna’s statement about a gentile: “

and he disqualifies her from teruma”—

is this obvious!?

And we explain:

Lest you say: “

And when the daughter of a koen is married to a foreign man

she may not eat of the sacred teruma”—

the Merciful One states,

from which we learn that all disqualified men disqualify a woman from eating teruma through their intercourse, since “a foreign man” means one who is foreign to her, that is, disqualified. And from the wording “when she shall be” we derive that only

one who can effect a marriage,

one with whom betrothal takes effect, such as a mamzer, netin, or ḥalal,

does

he disqualify her from teruma; but a gentile,

who cannot effect a marriage,

since he cannot betroth a Jewish woman,

does not

disqualify the woman through his intercourse.

It teaches us that he disqualifies her, in accordance with Rabbi Yoḥanan’s ruling.

For Rabbi Yoḥanan said in the name of Rabbi Yishmael: From where is it derived that a gentile or a slave who had intercourse with the daughter of a koen, with a Levite woman, or with a Jewish woman disqualifies her

from teruma [a daughter of a koen means a koen’s daughter while she is still in her father’s household; and the Levite and Jewish women are widows of koanim who eat teruma by virtue of their sons]?

As it is stated: “

And when the daughter of a koen is a widow or divorced

and she has no offspring, she shall return to her father’s house as in her youth; she may eat of her father’s bread,” meaning that she returns to eating teruma.”

And we expound: only if she had been married to

one who can have widowhood and divorce with her,

namely, a Jew, does she return to eating teruma;

excluding a gentile and a slave, who cannot have widowhood and divorce with her,

since his betrothal does not take effect with her, and consequently he cannot divorce her; and when he dies, she does not acquire the status of a widow. Therefore, even if she has no offspring from him, she does not return to teruma, since she was disqualified through his intercourse.

Thus, a gentile is grounds for warning on his account!

And we resolve:

Rather,

what does the Mishna’s statement “and one who is not a man”

come to exclude

?

Rav Pappa said: It comes to exclude an animal,

so that if he warned her not to seclude herself with an animal, it is not considered a valid warning.

For there is no adultery with an animal,

she does not become a zona through intercourse with an animal, nor does she become forbidden to her husband.

Rava of P||||? to Rav Ashi: From where is this matter derived, that the Sages said that there is no adultery with an animal?

As it is written:

“You shall not bring the fee of a zona or the price of a dog

into the house of the Lord your God.”

And it was taught in a beraita: The fee of a dog,

a man who gave a zona a lamb on the condition that she have intercourse with his dog,

and the price of a zona,

one who exchanged his zona slave-woman for a lamb,

are permitted

to be offered on the altar.

As it is stated

at the end of the verse: “For both

of them are an abomination to the Lord your God.”

And we expound:

two, but not four.

If there were adultery with an animal, the fee of a dog would be forbidden by virtue of being the fee of a zona.

And we inquire concerning this:

Rather, the phrase

“emission of semen,”

which is written in the context of sota,

why do I need it?

After all, one may warn her even on account of a shafuf.

And we explain:

It is needed for that which was taught in a beraita: “

emission of semen”—

excluding another matter.

And we explain:

What is the other matter?

Rav Sheshet said: It excludes one who warned her concerning intercourse in an unnatural manner,

that he warned her not to seclude herself with a certain man in order to have intercourse with him unnaturally, not in the place where semen is emitted; this is not considered a valid warning.

Rava said

to Rav Sheshet: Why is a warning concerning intercourse

unnaturally

not considered a valid warning? Is it not written:

“the lyings of a woman,”

in the plural,

to equate her two forms of lying in every respect? Just as she becomes forbidden to her husband through unnatural intercourse, so too one may warn her concerning such intercourse?

Rather, Rava said:

The beraita means:

excluding one who warned her concerning sexual contact by way of the limbs,

that she should not lie with him in bodily contact.

Abaye said

to Rava: This act is

mere licentiousness; and has the Merciful One forbidden mere licentiousness?

Does a woman become forbidden to her husband through an act of licentiousness? Since she does not become forbidden, it is obvious that this is not considered a valid warning!

Rather, Abaye said: It excludes one who warned her concerning a kiss,

a kiss by the male organ in that place.

And we challenge this:

This works according to the one who says that ha'ara'a

the form of intercourse mentioned by the Torah [as it is written: “he exposed her source”], whose law is like completed intercourse with regard to forbidden relations,

is the insertion of the corona; but a kiss is nothing at all—this is why the verse comes to exclude a kiss,

teaching us that a kiss is not ha'ara'a.

But according to the one who says that ha'ara'a is a kiss, what can be said?

Since it is like completed intercourse in every respect, why should it not be considered a valid warning?

And we conclude:

Actually,

“excluding another matter” means

excluding one who warned her concerning sexual contact by way of the limbs.

And lest you say that the Merciful One made the matter dependent on the husband’s concern,

as it is written: “And he became jealous of his wife,”

and here the husband was indeed particular,

for he warned her concerning it, and it should therefore be considered a valid warning.

It teaches us

that the verse excludes it from the category of warning.