Reference for Sotah 52:17
אמר שמואל ישא אדם
Raba of Parazika<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Farausag near Bagdad v. B.B. (Sonc. ed.) p. 15. n. 4. He is thus distinguished from the earlier Rabbi of that name ');"><sup>15</sup></span> asked R. Ashi, Whence is the statement which the Rabbis made that <font>there is no adultery in connection with an animal?</font> — Because it is written: <i>Thou shalt not bring the hire of a harlot or the wages of a dog</i> etc.;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXIII, 19. ');"><sup>16</sup></span> and it has been taught: <font>The hire of a dog<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Money given by a man to a harlot to associate with his dog. Such an association is not legal adultery. ');"><sup>17</sup></span></font> and the wages of a harlot<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If a man had a female slave who was a harlot and he exchanged her for an animal, it could be offered. ');"><sup>18</sup></span> are permissible, as it is said: <i>Even both these</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Are an abomination unto the Lord (ibid.). ');"><sup>19</sup></span> — <font>the two [specified in the text are abominations] but not four</font>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., the other two mentioned by the Rabbis. ');"><sup>20</sup></span> What is the purpose [of the Scriptural phrase] <i>carnally</i>?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In Num. V, 13, since the law applies to a man who is incapable. ');"><sup>21</sup></span> — It is required for this teaching: '<i>Carnally</i>' to the exclusion of something else. What means 'something else'? — R. Shesheth said: It excludes the case where he warned her against unnatural intercourse. Raba said to him, [It excludes the case where he warned her against] unnatural intercourse? It is written: <i>As lying with womankind</i>!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XVIII, 22. The word for 'lying' is in the plural and is explained as denoting also unnatural intercourse. ');"><sup>22</sup></span> But, said Raba, it excludes the case where he warned her <font>against contact of the bodies</font>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' With the other man, although there is no actual coition. ');"><sup>23</sup></span> Abaye said to him, <font>That is</font> <font>merely an obscene act [and not adultery], and did the All-Merciful prohibit [a wife to her husband] for an obscene act?</font> But, said Abaye, it excludes the case where he warned her against external contact. This is quite right according to him who maintains that by sexual contact is to be understood insertion<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is legally equal to complete coition. ');"><sup>24</sup></span> inasmuch as external contact is not regarded, and consequently the Scriptural phrase is intended to exclude the latter; but according to him who maintains that sexual contact is the external contact what is there to say? — Certainly [the Scriptural phrase is intended to exclude the case where] he warned her against contact of the bodies; and should you argue that the All-Merciful made it depend upon the husband's objection [to such conduct] and behold the husband did object,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As evidenced by his warning. ');"><sup>25</sup></span> therefore he informs us [that the phrase 'carnally' is to exclude this]. Samuel said: <font>Let a man marry</font>