Sotah 52

מהו דתימא (במדבר ה, יג) נטמאה נטמאה שני פעמים אחד לבעל ואחד לבועל היכא דקא מיתסרא בהא זנות אבל הא הואיל ואסורה וקיימא אימא לא קא משמע לן

— What you might have said was, The phrase 'and she be defiled' occurs twice<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 13f. ');">¹</span>

חוץ מן הקטן [וכו'] איש אמר רחמנא ולא קטן ושאינו איש למעוטי מאי אילימא למעוטי שחוף והאמר שמואל שחוף מקנין על ידו ופוסל בתרומה

— once with respect to the husband and the other with respect to the paramour<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' She must be divorced by her husband and is not allowed to marry her paramour. V. Mishnah p. 135. ');">²</span>

מקנין על ידו פשיטא מהו דתימא (במדבר ה, יג) ושכב איש אותה שכבת זרע אמר רחמנא והא לאו בר הכי הוא קמ"ל

— but it only applies when she becomes prohibited [to the paramour] by this act of adultery; but where she was in any event forbidden to him, conclude that she is not [barred from marrying him]. Therefore he informs us [that she has to undergo the ordeal although the paramour was forbidden to her in any case and if guilty she cannot marry her paramour].

ופוסל בתרומה פשיטא מהו דתימא (ויקרא כא, טו) לא יחלל זרעו אמר רחמנא דאית ליה זרע ליחלל דלית ליה זרע לא ליחלל קמ"ל

WITH THE EXCEPTION OF A MINOR etc. A man<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lie with her carnally. Num. V, 13. ');">³</span>

ואלא למעוטי עובד כוכבים והאמר רב המנונא עובד כוכבים מקנין על ידו ופוסל בתרומה

declared the All-Merciful, not a minor.

מקנין על ידו פשיטא מהו דתימא נטמאה נטמאה שתי פעמים אחד לבעל ואחד לבועל היכא דקמיתסרא בהא זנות אבל הא הואיל ואסורה וקיימא אימא לא קמשמע לן

AND ONE NOT A MAN. Whom does this exclude? If I answer that it is to exclude one whose flesh is wasted,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Tosef. Bek. V, 4, identifies the term with he who hath his stones broken in Lev. XXI, 20. ');">⁴</span>

ופוסל בתרומה פשיטא מהו דתימא (ויקרא כב, יב) ובת כהן כי תהיה לאיש זר אמר רחמנא דבר הויה אין דלאו בר הויה לא קמשמע לן דפסיל מדרבי יוחנן

behold Samuel has said: A warning [against seclusion] can be given in connection with a man who is wasting and he disqualifies for partaking of the heave-offering!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If he married a priest's daughter when he was so afflicted, she loses the right to eat of the heave-offering. ');">⁵</span>

דאמר רבי יוחנן משום רבי ישמעאל מנין לעובד כוכבים ועבד שבאו על הכהנת ועל הלוייה ועל בת ישראל שפסלוה שנאמר (ויקרא כב, יג) ובת כהן כי תהיה אלמנה וגרושה מי שיש לו אלמנות וגירושין בה יצאו עובד כוכבים ועבד שאין לו אלמנות וגירושין בה

(A warning [against seclusion] can be given in connection with him — this is self-evident! — What you might have said was, 'And a man lie with her carnally' declared the All-Merciful and such a one does not come within that category; therefore he informs us [that seclusion with him does bring the woman within the scope of the law]. And he disqualifies for partaking of the heave-offering — that is self-evident! — What you might have said was, He shall not profane his seed<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXI, 15. ');">⁶</span>

ואלא למעוטי מאי א"ר פפא למעוטי בהמה דאין זנות בבהמה

declared the All-Merciful-one who had 'seed' can profane,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A priest's daughter by marriage. ');">⁷</span>

אמר ליה רבא מפרזקיא לרב אשי מנא הא מילתא דאמור רבנן אין זנות בבהמה דכתיב (דברים כג, יט) לא תביא אתנן זונה ומחיר כלב וגו'

but one who had no 'seed' cannot profane; therefore he informs us [that he can profane].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Consequently a person who is so afflicted is regarded as 'a man' and cannot be intended by the Mishnah. ');">⁸</span>

ותניא אתנן כלב ומחיר זונה מותרין שנאמר גם שניהם שנים ולא ארבעה

) If, on the other hand, it is to exclude a gentile, behold R. Hamnuna has said: A warning [against seclusion] can be given in connection with a gentile and he disqualifies for partaking of the heave-offering! (A warning [against seclusion] can be given in connection with him — this is self-evident! — What you might have said was, The phrase 'and she be defiled' occurs twice — once with respect to the husband and the other with respect to the paramour — but it only applies when she becomes prohibited [to the paramour] by this act of adultery; but where she was in any event forbidden to him,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He being a gentile. ');">⁹</span>

ואלא שכבת זרע ל"ל מיבעי ליה לכדתניא ש"ז פרט לדבר אחר

conclude that she is not [warned against seclusion]. Therefore he informs us [that a warning can be given with respect to a gentile]. And he disqualifies for partaking of the heave-offering — this is self-evident! — What you might have said was, And if a priest's daughter be married unto a stranger<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXII, 12. ');">¹⁰</span>

מאי דבר אחר אמר רב ששת פרט לשקינא לה שלא כדרכה אמר ליה רבא שלא כדרכה (ויקרא יח, כב) משכבי אשה כתיב

declared the All-Merciful, i.e., when there was a legal marriage-status, but not when there is no legal marriage-status. Therefore he informs us [that a gentile] &nbsp; &nbsp; does disqualify her. This is in agreement with R. Johanan who said in the name of R. Ishmael: Whence is it that a gentile or a slave who had intercourse with a priest's daughter or Levite's daughter or an Israelite's daughter disqualifies her [for the heave-offering]? As it is said: <i>But if a priest's daughter be a widow, or divorced</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXII, 13. ');">¹¹</span>

אלא אמר רבא פרט לשקינא לה דרך אברים א"ל אביי פריצותא בעלמא היא ופריצותא מי אסר רחמנא

— only In the case of a man where her widowhood or divorce [is legally recognised],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Does she return to her father's house and eat the heave-offering. ');">¹²</span>

אלא אמר אביי פרט לשקינא לה בנשיקה הניחא למ"ד העראה זו הכנסת עטרה אבל נשיקה ולא כלום היא היינו דאתי קרא למעוטי נשיקה אלא למאן דאמר דאמר העראה זו נשיקה מאי איכא למימר

thus excluding a gentile or slave where her widowhood or divorce is not [legally recognised].)<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Therefore a gentile cannot be intended by the Mishnah. ');">¹³</span>

לעולם לשקינא לה דרך אברים ומהו דתימא בקפידא דבעל תליא רחמנא ובעל הא קא קפיד קמשמע לן

What, then, [does the phrase AND NOT A MAN] exclude? — R. Papa said: It excludes an animal, because there is not adultery in connection with an animal.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' She would not be prohibited to her husband for such an act. ');">¹⁴</span>

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 ');">¹⁵</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. ');">¹⁶</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. ');">¹⁷</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. ');">¹⁸</span> are permissible, as it is said: <i>Even both these</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Are an abomination unto the Lord (ibid.). ');">¹⁹</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. ');">²⁰</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. ');">²¹</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. ');">²²</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. ');">²³</span> Abaye said to him, <font>That is</font> &nbsp; &nbsp; <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. ');">²⁴</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. ');">²⁵</span> therefore he informs us [that the phrase 'carnally' is to exclude this]. Samuel said: <font>Let a man marry</font>