Dedicate Daf 26b to:



מהו דתימא נטמאה נטמאה שני פעמים אחד לבעל ואחד לבועל
I would have thought
that since the Gemara interprets the repetition of the verse
"She's impure"
as teaching that an immoral woman is forbidden to both
her husband and her adulterer,

היכא דקא מיתסרא בהא זנות אבל הא הואיל ואסורה וקיימא אימא לא קא משמע לן
Perhaps the laws of the Sotah apply only
when
the wife
would become forbidden
to her adulterer,
but
if the adulterer is an already forbidden relative, the drinking is ineffective.

 
But it is not so, and the Mishna teaches that one can warn even against one who is a forbidden relative.
 
 
 
 
:חוץ מן הקטן וכו':
Except for a child

 
 
 
 
The verse says "in that a man has had intimate relations with her, without it being known to her husband, and she keeps a secret that she has defiled herself without being forced, and there is no witness against her"
 
 
איש אמר רחמנא ולא קטן
The verse says
"in that
a man
has had intimate relations with her," to exclude
a child.

The Gemara Asks:
ושאינו איש למעוטי מאי
Who does
the Mishna exclude with the statement of
"not a man"?

The Gemara offers three options:
אילימא למעוטי שחוף
1. It cannot be one who's so
old
that his flesh withered,

והאמר שמואל שחוף מקנין על ידו ופוסל בתרומה
As
Shmuel said that
one may
warn
a woman not to be secluded
with
a man even if he's that
old, and
if they had relations, the wife
is forbidden to eat Terumah
ever again, as if she had relations with any other man.

The Gemara will now discuss the above teaching of Shmuel:
The Gemara Asks:
מקנין על ידו פשיטא
Is it not
obvious
that one
can
warn his wife
not to
be secluded with an old man?

The Gemara Answers:
מהו דתימא ושכב איש אותה שכבת זרע אמר רחמנא והא לאו בר הכי הוא קמ"ל
קא משמע לן
One could have thought
that
the verse which says
"in that a man has had intimate relations with her"
excludes an old person from the law of the Sotah, as he
is
physically
incapable
of giving seed. Therefore, Shmuel
must teach
that this is not so, and one may warn his wife to not be secluded with an old man.

The Gemara Asks:
ופוסל בתרומה פשיטא
Is it not
obvious that
a woman who had relations with an old man
is forbidden to eat Terumah?

The Gemara Answers:
מהו דתימא לא יחלל זרעו אמר רחמנא דאית ליה זרע ליחלל דלית ליה זרע לא ליחלל קמ"ל
קא משמע לן
One could have thought that
the verse
which
says "And he shall not profane his seed"
implies that a wife becomes a Chalalah (and is forbidden to eat Terumah) only
when
her adulterer
can beer seed, but if
the adulterer
is incapable of bearing seed,
the immoral wife
would not become
a Chalalah. So Shmuel must teach that the Halacha is not like that.

 
Either way, Shmuel teaches that a warning against being secluded with an old man is effective.
 
 
The Gemara tries another approach:
ואלא למעוטי עובד כוכבים
2. So perhaps "not a man"
refers to an idolater?

The Gemara rejects this approach:
והאמר רב המנונא עובד כוכבים מקנין על ידו ופוסל בתרומה
But Rav Hamnuna said that one can warn his wife
against being secluded
with a non - Jew, and
if a non - Jew had relations with a Jewish woman,
she's forbidden to eat Terumah.

The Gemara discusses the novel points in Rav Hamnuna's teachings:
The Gemara Asks:
מקנין על ידו פשיטא
Isn't it obvious that a husband
can warn
his wife against being secluded with a non - Jew?

The Gemara Answers:
מהו דתימא נטמאה נטמאה שתי פעמים
One could have thought that since the words
"she is impure" appear twice
in the verse,

אחד לבעל ואחד לבועל
And the Gemara expounds this repetition to teach that
the husband
must divorce his immoral wife,
and the adulterer
may not marry her.

היכא דקמיתסרא בהא זנות
So perhaps the verse teaches that one can be warned against seclusion where
adultery would forbid her
to the adulterer.

אבל הא הואיל ואסורה וקיימא אימא לא
But
all Jews
are forbidden to
marry non - Jews,
so perhaps
the warning and seclusion
should not be effective.

קמשמע לן
So Rav Hamnuna
has to teach
that this is not so, and even if the wife was warned against being secluded with a non - Jew, she can be tested by the bitter waters.

The Gemara now will discuss the second point:
ופוסל בתרומה פשיטא
Is it not obvious
that immorality with non - Jew would would forbid a woman to eating Terumah?

The Gemara Answers:
מהו דתימא ובת כהן כי תהיה לאיש זר אמר רחמנא דבר הויה אין דלאו בר הויה לא
Since the verse says "And a daughter of a Kohen will marry a foreigner
(who is not a Kohen)", one may think that a woman is forbidden to eat Terumah only through living with someone
who she can
Halachically
marry, but since
a Jew cannot Halachically enter a marriage with a non - Jew, perhaps living with one should
not
cause her to become a Chalalah.

קמשמע לן דפסיל
To avoid this misunderstanding, Rav Hamnuna
must teach that she is
forbidden to eat Terumah after living with a non - Jew.

The Gemara will now explain why doesn't Rav Hamnuna agree to the above interpretation:
מדרבי יוחנן
And the reason she is forbidden to eat Terumah
is
taught in the following Braisa by
Rabbi Yochanan:

דאמר רבי יוחנן משום רבי ישמעאל מנין לעובד כוכבים ועבד שבאו על הכהנת ועל הלוייה ועל בת ישראל שפסלוה
As Rabbi Yochanan said in the name of Rabbi Yishmael, that
the source
that
a female
Kohen, a Levi, or an Israel
who lived with
a non - Jew or a slave
is forbidden to eat Terumah?

שנאמר ובת כהן כי תהיה אלמנה וגרושה
Since
the verse
says "But if a priest's daughter be a widow, or divorced."

מי שיש לו אלמנות וגירושין בה יצאו עובד כוכבים ועבד שאין לו אלמנות וגירושין בה
A woman who was intimate with someone may eat Terumah only if the person she lived with was capable of marrying her, so that
she could become a widow or divorcee.

 
And since a non - Jew can not Halachically affect marriage with a Jewish woman, plain intimacy forbids the wife from ever eating Terumah again.
 
 
So the Gemara asks again:
ואלא למעוטי מאי
So what does
"not a man"
exclude?

א"ר
אמר רב
פפא למעוטי בהמה
3.
Rav Papa said that
the Mishna teaches that one may not warn is wife
against
seclusion
with an animal.

דאין זנות בבהמה
For
intimacy with an
animal
is not
immorality.

 
While it's Biblically forbidden, and is punishable by death, it's not technical immorality. So a married woman who sleeps with an animal does not become forbidden to her husband.
 
 
אמר ליה רבא מפרזקיא לרב אשי מנא הא מילתא דאמור רבנן אין זנות בבהמה
Rav from Prazakia asked Rav Ashi
for
the source that
intimacy
with an animal
is not called
immorality?

דכתיב לא תביא אתנן זונה ומחיר כלב וגו'
Rav Ashi answered that
the
source is the
verse "you shall not bring the wage of a harlot, or the close
This refers to an animal exchanged for...
exchange of a dog
as a sacrifice".

 
So while one may not bring a wage of a harlot or the exchange of a dog, one may bring...
 
 
ותניא אתנן כלב ומחיר זונה מותרין
However,
a Braisa taught that the wages
one pays for another to be intimate with
his dog or
a sheep
exchanged
for the services of
a harlot are permitted
to be brought as a sacrifice.

 
Had sleeping with an animal been considered harlotry (and forbidden a woman from staying married to her husband), the wages of a dog would also been forbidden.
 
And the source of this teaching is...
 
 
שנאמר גם שניהם
Since
the verse says
says "the two of them",

שנים ולא ארבעה
Only two "prices"
are forbidden, but not four.

 
 
 
The Gemara Asks:
ואלא שכבת זרע ל"ל
למה לי
If one can warn his wife even against an old man, who cannot give seed,
why does
the verse say
"carnally"?

 
 
 
The Gemara Answers:
מיבעי ליה לכדתניא ש"ז
שכבת זרה
פרט לדבר אחר
A Braisa teaches that the word "carnally" excludes
"another matter".

The Gemara Asks:
מאי דבר אחר
What is this "other matter?"

The Gemara will attempt four answers:
אמר רב ששת פרט לשקינא לה שלא כדרכה
1.
Rav Sheshes said that
the verse teaches that one may not warn his wife against seclusion with someone who will be intimate with her in an abnormal manner.

The Gemara asks that there is another verse which teaches that!
אמר ליה רבא שלא כדרכה משכבי אשה כתיב
Rava answered back that
the law that seclusion leading to
unusual
intimacy is not subject to warning
is derived from
the words
"the laying of a woman"!

 
 
 
The Gemara attempts another answer:
אלא אמר רבא פרט לשקינא לה דרך אברים
2.
Rather, Rava said that
"the other thing" teaches that one cannot warn his wife against seclusion with someone who will just lie next to her without intimacy.

The Gemara Asks:
א"ל
אמר ליה
אביי פריצותא בעלמא היא ופריצותא מי אסר רחמנא
Abaye said that this is just lewdness, and does the Torah forbid
a husband to live with his wife just because she was
lewd?

The Gemara attempts another answer:
אלא אמר אביי פרט לשקינא לה בנשיקה
3.
Rather, Rava said that
the verse "carnally" exclude the case where
the
organs
were touching.

הניחא למ"ד
למאן דאמר
העראה זו הכנסת עטרה אבל נשיקה ולא כלום היא היינו דאתי קרא למעוטי נשיקה
Rava's explanation
makes sense
only
according to the opinion that
illicit relations requires
insertion of the corona, so
if the organs were only
touching
they were not considered to have committed true immorality, so the verse would not allow the husband to warn his wife against such "lite" immorality,

 
There is an argument over what stage in intercourse renders one to have committed full intercourse. One opinion says that even if the organs just touched each other, they are considered to have been intimate, while the other opinion says that intimacy requires that one insert the organ.
 
 
The Gemara Asks:
אלא למאן דאמר דאמר העראה זו נשיקה מאי איכא למימר
But according to the opinion that "touching" is
also considered
penetration
(and, therefore, full intercourse), why can't the husband warn his wife against "touching"?

The Gemara gives the final answer:
לעולם לשקינא לה דרך אברים
4.
Rather,
the "other thing" is that warning one's wife against seclusion that may lead to sleeping together (without intimacy) is ineffective,

ומהו דתימא בקפידא דבעל תליא רחמנא ובעל הא קא קפיד
But
perhaps one can say that
since Hashem
made the warning dependent
on the husband, and the husband cares
that his wife
not
sleep together with anyone, perhaps the warning would be effective.

קמשמע לן
The Mishna has to
teach
otherwise, and the warning would be ineffective.

 
 
 
 
The Gemara continues to discuss immorality, citing two opinions:
אמר שמואל
Shmuel says:

ישא אדם
1.
A person should marry






Translation copyright by the OpenGemara project. If you would like permission to use our data, please contact us

Dedicated in loving memory of Leah Rivka Bas Reb Dovid HaKohen A"H.
Last build: 2019-01-31T02:13:57Z