Sotah 26b — the Talmud in English

And we answer:

lest you say:

“she became impure” and

“she became impure”,

were stated twice in the passage, and we expound:

one is stated

one

to prohibit her to the husband,

and one

to prohibit her to

the paramour.

The passage speaks only

where she becomes prohibited through this adultery,

by this act of adultery, to her paramour;

but this,

the forbidden relations concerning which he warned her,

since she is already prohibited

to them even without the adultery,

say: not

does the law of a sota apply to them.

It teaches us

that the verse does not come to exclude relatives, but to teach the basic law that she becomes prohibited to her paramour through the warning, and in a case where 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 said, and not a minor.

And one who is not a man,

as it teaches in the Mishna, that one does not warn concerning him,

what is it excluding?

If you say that it excludes an impotent man,

a man who does not become erect and does not beget children?

But did not Shmuel say: concerning an impotent man one warns, and he disqualifies from teruma?

If the impotent man was one of those disqualified who profane the woman, such as a gentile, a slave, a halal, a natin, or a mamzer, and he had intercourse with the woman, she is disqualified from eating teruma.

And we considered this:

Concerning him one warns—is it not obvious?

And we answer:

lest you say, “

And a man shall lie with her, a discharge of seed”—

the Merciful One said,

and this impotent man

is not capable of this; it teaches us

that even so, one warns concerning him.

We further considered what Shmuel said concerning an impotent man,

“and he disqualifies from teruma”—

is it not obvious!?

And we answer:

lest you say,

“He shall not profane his offspring”—

the Merciful One said,

from here we learn concerning a woman disqualified from the priesthood who had intercourse with a priest, that she is profaned through his intercourse, for “he shall not profane” indicates two acts of profanation—since it could have written “and he shall not profane”—one act of profanation for the woman and one act of profanation for her offspring—and specifically

where he has offspring to profane,

but an impotent man

who has no offspring,

who does not emit seed,

does not profane; it teaches us

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

It follows that concerning an impotent man one warns, and it is impossible to say that the Mishna intends to exclude an impotent man!

And we answer:

rather, to exclude a gentile,

who is not included in the category of “man,” and one does not warn concerning him.

And we object:

But did not Rav Hamnuna say: concerning a gentile one warns, and he disqualifies from teruma?

And we considered this:

Concerning him one warns—is it not obvious?

And we answer:

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 prohibited

to her paramour

through this adultery,

then the law of a sota applies to her;

but this,

the gentile,

since she is already prohibited

to him even without the adultery,

say: not

will one warn concerning him.

It teaches us

that one warns even concerning him. We further considered the words of Rav Hamnuna, who said concerning a gentile,

“and he disqualifies from teruma”—

is it not obvious!?

And we answer:

lest you say,

“And the daughter of a priest, when she becomes married to a foreign man,

she shall not eat of the sacred teruma”—

the Merciful One said,

and from here we learn that all those disqualified disqualify the woman from eating teruma through their intercourse, for “to a foreign man” means one who is foreign to her, that is, one who is disqualified. And from the expression “she becomes” we expound that specifically

one capable of marriage,

one with whom betrothal takes effect, such as a mamzer, a natin, or a halal,

does

alone disqualify her from teruma; but a gentile,

who is not capable of marriage,

who has no betrothal among Jews,

does not

disqualify the woman through his intercourse.

It teaches us that he disqualifies her, based on the statement of Rabbi Yohanan.

For Rabbi Yohanan said in the name of Rabbi Yishmael: From where [do we know] that a gentile and a slave who had intercourse with a priest’s daughter, with a Levite’s daughter, or with an Israelite woman disqualified her

from teruma [a priest’s daughter means a daughter of a priest while she is still in her father’s house; and a Levite’s daughter and an Israelite woman refers to one who was widowed by a priest and eats teruma by virtue of her sons]?

As it is stated,

“And the daughter of a priest, when she becomes a widow or divorced,”

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

And we expound: only if she had been married to

one who has widowhood and divorce with her,

namely, an Israelite, does she return to eating teruma;

excluding a gentile and a slave, who have no widowhood and divorce with her,

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

It follows that concerning a gentile one warns!

And we answer:

rather,

that which is taught in the Mishna, “and one who is not a man,”

what does it come to exclude

?

Rav Pappa said: To exclude an animal,

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

For there is no adultery with an animal,

she does not become an adulteress through intercourse with an animal and does not become prohibited to her husband.

Rava of Parzika said to Rav Ashi: From where is this matter that the Sages said, ‘There is no adultery with an animal’?

As it is written,

“You shall not bring the fee of a harlot 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 harlot a lamb on the condition that she have intercourse with his dog,

and the price of a harlot,

one who exchanged his harlot slavewoman for a lamb,

are permitted

for sacrifice upon the altar.

As it is stated

at the end of the verse, “For an abomination of the Lord your God

are both.”

And we expound:

two, and not four.

And if there were adultery with an animal, the fee of a dog would be prohibited on account of the fee of a harlot.

And we considered this:

rather,

“a discharge of seed,”

which is written concerning a sota,

why do I need it?

For one warns even through an impotent man?

And we answer:

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

“a discharge of seed,”

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,

who warned her not to seclude herself with so-and-so in order to have intercourse with him unnaturally, not in the place of seed; this is not considered a warning.

Rava said

to Rav Sheshet: A warning concerning intercourse

in an unnatural manner

why is it not considered a warning? Is it not written,

“the beds of a woman,”

in the plural,

to equate her two beds in every regard? And just as she becomes prohibited to her husband through an unnatural bed, so too he can warn her concerning such a bed?

Rather, Rava said:

The intention of the beraita is to say:

excluding one who warned her concerning intimate contact by other limbs,

that she should not lie with him in bodily closeness.

Abaye said

to Rava: This matter

is merely licentiousness, and did the Merciful One prohibit licentiousness?

Would a woman become prohibited to her husband through an act of licentiousness? And since she does not become prohibited, is it not obvious that it is not considered a warning?

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

kissing with the organ in that place.

And we object:

This works according to the one who says that he'ara

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

is the insertion of the corona; but kissing is nothing, this is why the verse comes to exclude kissing,

to teach us that kissing is not he'ara.

But according to the one who says that he'ara is kissing, what can be said?

For since it is like completed intercourse in every regard, why should it not be considered a warning?

And we conclude:

In truth, “

excluding another matter” means

excluding one who warned her concerning intimate contact by other limbs.

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

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

and the husband here does object,

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

It teaches us

that the verse excludes it from a warning.