## Sotah Daf 26b

###### Sotah 26b:1
[Sotah 26b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/26b:1)

מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: ״נִטְמָאָה״ ״נִטְמָאָה״ שְׁנֵי פְּעָמִים: אֶחָד לַבַּעַל וְאֶחָד לַבּוֹעֵל. הֵיכָא דְּקָא מִיתַּסְרָא בְּהָא זְנוּת, אֲבָל הָא הוֹאִיל וַאֲסוּרָה וְקָיְימָא, אֵימָא לָא, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: It is necessary, **lest you say** that the *sota* ritual does not apply with regard to forbidden relatives, as the Torah states: “And she **was defiled”** (Numbers 5:13), “And she **was defiled”** (Numbers 5:14), **two times. One** verse teaches that she is defiled and forbidden **to** her **husband, and one** verse teaches that she is forbidden **to** her **paramour.** One might understand that the *sota* ritual applies only **where she is forbidden** to the paramour **due to this licentious intercourse; however,** with regard to **that** woman, who secluded herself with a forbidden relative, **since** the woman already **stands prohibited** to him due to the prohibition of incest, one might **say** that the *sota* ritual **does not** apply. The mishna therefore **teaches us** that one can issue a warning even with regard to forbidden relatives.


###### Sotah 26b:2
[Sotah 26b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/26b:2)

חוּץ מִן הַקָּטָן וְכוּ׳. ״אִישׁ״ אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא, וְלֹא קָטָן וְשֶׁאֵינוֹ אִישׁ. לְמַעוֹטֵי מַאי? אִילֵּימָא לְמַעוֹטֵי שָׁחוּף, וְהָאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: שָׁחוּף מְקַנִּין עַל יָדוֹ, וּפוֹסֵל בִּתְרוּמָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna states: A husband can issue a warning to his wife with regard to all those with whom relations are forbidden, **with the exception of a minor** and of one who is not a man. The Gemara cites the source for this *halakha*: **The Merciful One states** in the Torah: “And **a man** lay with her” (Numbers 5:13), indicating that one can warn his wife with regard to a man **but not** with regard to **a minor.** The Gemara asks: The phrase: **And** of one **who is not a man,** serves **to exclude what? If we say** that it serves **to exclude a sick man who lacks the ability to complete intercourse [*shaḥuf*], but didn’t Shmuel say: One can issue a warning with regard to a *shaḥuf*, and** if a *shaḥuf* engages in sexual intercourse with the daughter of a priest, he **disqualifies** her **from** partaking of ***teruma*.**


###### Sotah 26b:3
[Sotah 26b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/26b:3)

מְקַנִּין עַל יָדוֹ, פְּשִׁיטָא! מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: ״וְשָׁכַב אִישׁ אֹתָהּ שִׁכְבַת זֶרַע״ אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא, וְהָא לָאו בַּר הָכִי הוּא, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
With regard to Shmuel’s statement that **one can issue a warning with regard to** a *shaḥuf*, the Gemara asks: **Isn’t** that **obvious?** The Gemara answers: It is necessary, **lest you say** that one cannot issue a warning with regard to a *shaḥuf*, as **the Merciful One states** in the Torah: **“And a man lay with her carnally [*shikhvat zera*]”** (Numbers 5:13), literally, a lying of seed, **and this** man **is not capable of that,** as he cannot ejaculate. Shmuel therefore **teaches us** that one can issue a warning with regard to a *shaḥuf*.


###### Sotah 26b:4
[Sotah 26b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/26b:4)

וּפוֹסֵל בִּתְרוּמָה. פְּשִׁיטָא! מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: ״לֹא יְחַלֵּל זַרְעוֹ״ אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא: דְּאִית לֵיהּ זֶרַע — לִיחַלֵּל, דְּלֵית לֵיהּ זֶרַע — לָא לִיחַלֵּל, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks with regard to Shmuel’s statement that a *shaḥuf* who engages in sexual intercourse with the daughter of a priest **disqualifies** her **from** partaking of ***teruma*: Isn’t** that **obvious?** The Gemara answers: It is necessary **lest you say** that a *shaḥuf* does not disqualify the daughter of a priest from partaking of *teruma*, as **the Merciful One states** in the Torah with regard to a priest: “And **he shall not disqualify his offspring** among his people” (Leviticus 21:15). One might infer from this verse that one **who** can **have offspring disqualifies** a woman from partaking of *teruma*, through forbidden sexual intercourse, and that one **who cannot have offspring does not disqualify** a woman from partaking of *teruma*. Shmuel therefore **teaches us** that this is not so. In any event, Shmuel states that one can issue a warning on account of a *shaḥuf*, unlike the initial interpretation of the mishna.


###### Sotah 26b:5
[Sotah 26b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/26b:5)

וְאֶלָּא לְמַעוֹטֵי נׇכְרִי? וְהָאָמַר רַב הַמְנוּנָא: נׇכְרִי מְקַנִּין עַל יָדוֹ וּפוֹסֵל בִּתְרוּמָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Since Shmuel’s statement contradicts the suggestion that the mishna excludes a *shaḥuf*, the Gemara suggests another explanation: **Rather,** the mishna serves **to exclude a gentile,** and teaches that one cannot issue a warning with regard to him. The Gemara asks: **But didn’t Rav Hamnuna say: One can issue a warning with regard to a gentile, and** if a gentile engages in sexual intercourse with the daughter of a priest, he **disqualifies** her **from** partaking of ***teruma*.**


###### Sotah 26b:6
[Sotah 26b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/26b:6)

מְקַנִּין עַל יָדוֹ — פְּשִׁיטָא! מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא ״נִטְמָאָה״ ״נִטְמָאָה״ שְׁתֵּי פְּעָמִים: אֶחָד לַבַּעַל וְאֶחָד לַבּוֹעֵל, הֵיכָא דְּקָמִיתַּסְרָא בְּהָא זְנוּת, אֲבָל הָא הוֹאִיל וַאֲסִירָא וְקָיְימָא, אֵימָא לָא, קָמַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks with regard to Rav Hamnuna’s statement that **one can issue a warning with regard to** a gentile: **Isn’t** that **obvious?** The Gemara answers: It is necessary **lest you say** that one cannot issue a warning in this case, as the verse states: “And she **was defiled”** (Numbers 5:13), “And she **was defiled”** (Numbers 5:14), **twice. One** verse teaches that she is defiled and forbidden **to** her **husband, and one** verse teaches that she is forbidden **to** her **paramour.** One might understand that the *sota* ritual applies only **where she is forbidden** to the paramour **due to this licentious intercourse; however,** with regard to **that** woman, who engaged in sexual intercourse with a gentile, **since** she already **stands prohibited** to him, one might **say** that the *sota* ritual **does not** apply. Rav Hamnuna therefore **teaches us** that one can issue a warning even with regard to a gentile.


###### Sotah 26b:7
[Sotah 26b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/26b:7)

וּפוֹסֵל בִּתְרוּמָה — פְּשִׁיטָא! מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: ״וּבַת כֹּהֵן כִּי תִהְיֶה לְאִישׁ זָר״ אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא: דְּבַר הֲוָיָה — אִין, דְּלָאו בַּר הֲוָיָה — לָא, קָמַשְׁמַע לַן דְּפָסֵיל מִדְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks with regard to Rav Hamnuna’s statement that a gentile who engages in sexual intercourse with the daughter of a priest **disqualifies** her **from** partaking of ***teruma*: Isn’t** that **obvious?** The Gemara answers: It is necessary **lest you say** that he does not disqualify her, as **the Merciful One states** in the Torah: **“And if a priest’s daughter should be unto a strange man,** she shall not eat of that which is set apart from the holy things” (Leviticus 22:12), indicating that if a woman engages in sexual intercourse with one who is unfit for her, he disqualifies her from partaking of *teruma*. Since the term “should be unto” denotes marriage, one might say **that one who is eligible for betrothal, yes,** he disqualifies the woman; but a gentile, **who is not eligible for betrothal, does not** disqualify her. Rav Hamnuna therefore **teaches us that** a gentile **disqualifies** the woman from partaking of *teruma*, as one can learn **from** the ruling **of Rabbi Yoḥanan.**


###### Sotah 26b:8
[Sotah 26b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/26b:8)

דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: מִנַּיִן לְנׇכְרִי וְעֶבֶד שֶׁבָּאוּ עַל הַכֹּהֶנֶת וְעַל הַלְּוִיָּיה וְעַל בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל, שֶׁפְּסָלוּהָ — שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וּבַת כֹּהֵן כִּי תִהְיֶה אַלְמָנָה וּגְרוּשָׁה״. מִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ אַלְמְנוּת וְגֵירוּשִׁין בָּהּ, יָצְאוּ נׇכְרִי וְעֶבֶד, שֶׁאֵין לוֹ אַלְמְנוּת וְגֵירוּשִׁין בָּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
This is **as Rabbi Yoḥanan says in the name of Rabbi Yishmael: From where** is it derived **that a gentile or a slave who engaged in sexual intercourse with the daughter of a priest or with the daughter of a Levite or with** the **daughter of an Israelite, disqualified her** from marrying a priest and from partaking of *teruma*? This is derived **as** it **is stated: “But if a priest’s daughter should be a widow or a divorcée…**she returns to her father’s house…she may eat of her father’s bread” (Leviticus 22:13). This indicates that the daughter of a priest returns to eat of her father’s bread, i.e., *teruma*, if she engaged in sexual intercourse with **one whose** marriage **to her has** the potential to end in **widowhood or divorce,** i.e., a Jew whom she is permitted to marry. This **excludes a gentile and a slave, whose** marriage **to her does not have** the potential to end in **widowhood or divorce,** as their betrothal is invalid.


###### Sotah 26b:9
[Sotah 26b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/26b:9)

וְאֶלָּא לְמַעוֹטֵי מַאי? אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: לְמַעוֹטֵי בְּהֵמָה, דְּאֵין זְנוּת בִּבְהֵמָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Since Rav Hamnuna’s statement contradicts the suggestion that the mishna excludes a gentile, the Gemara asks: **Rather, what** does the term: And of one who is not a man, serve **to exclude? Rav Pappa says:** This serves **to exclude an animal, as** the concept of **licentiousness does not** apply **with regard to an animal.** Therefore, the *halakhot* of a *sota* do not apply in this case.


###### Sotah 26b:10
[Sotah 26b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/26b:10)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא מִפַּרְזִקְיָא לְרַב אָשֵׁי: מְנַָא הָא מִילְּתָא דַּאֲמוּר רַבָּנַן אֵין זְנוּת בִּבְהֵמָה, דִּכְתִיב: ״לֹא תָבִיא אֶתְנַן זוֹנָה וּמְחִיר כֶּלֶב וְגוֹ׳״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava of Parzakya said to Rav Ashi: From where is this matter that the Sages stated** derived, that **licentiousness does not** apply **with regard to an animal?** Rav Ashi replied that it is **as it is written: “You shall not bring the hire of a harlot, or the price of a dog,** into the house of the Lord your God for any vow; for both of them are an abomination to the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 23:19). This verse prohibits one from sacrificing an animal that served as payment to a prostitute or as payment for the purchase of a dog.


###### Sotah 26b:11
[Sotah 26b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/26b:11)

וְתַנְיָא: אֶתְנַן כֶּלֶב וּמְחִיר זוֹנָה — מוּתָּרִין, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״גַּם שְׁנֵיהֶם״, שְׁנַיִם וְלֹא אַרְבָּעָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And it is taught** in a mishna (*Temura* 30a): In the converse cases, **the hire of a dog,** i.e., a kosher animal that was given to the owner of a dog as payment for engaging in intercourse with it, **and the price of a prostitute,** i.e., a kosher animal which served as payment in the purchase of a maidservant acquired for prostitution, **are permitted** to be sacrificed, **as** it **is stated** in the aforementioned verse: **For both of them.** This term indicates that only those **two** animals may not be sacrificed, i.e., those which served as the hire of a harlot and as the price of a dog; **and not four** animals, as the reverse cases are excluded from this *halakha*. This indicates that the concept of licentiousness does not apply with regard to animals, as the payment for intercourse with a dog is not considered payment for prostitution.


###### Sotah 26b:12
[Sotah 26b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/26b:12)

וְאֶלָּא ״שִׁכְבַת זֶרַע״, לְמָה לִי? מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְכִדְתַנְיָא: ״שִׁכְבַת זֶרַע״ — פְּרָט לְדָבָר אַחֵר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: Shmuel states that one can issue a warning with regard to a *shaḥuf* even though he is unable to discharge semen. **But rather, why do I** need the verse to state: “And a man lay with her **carnally [*shikhvat zera*]”** (Numbers 5:13)? The Gemara answers: It is **necessary for that which is taught** in a *baraita*: The term **“*shikhvat zera*” excludes something else.**


###### Sotah 26b:13
[Sotah 26b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/26b:13)

מַאי ״דָּבָר אַחֵר״? אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: פְּרָט לְשֶׁקִּינֵּא לָהּ שֶׁלֹּא כְּדַרְכָּהּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא: שֶׁלֹּא כְּדַרְכָּהּ, ״מִשְׁכְּבֵי אִשָּׁה״ כְּתִיב!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What is** meant by the term: **Something else? Rav Sheshet said:** This **excludes** a case **where** the husband **issued a warning to** his wife not to engage in sexual intercourse **in an atypical manner,** i.e., anal intercourse, with another man, and teaches that this is not considered a valid warning. **Rava said to** Rav Sheshet: Intercourse **in an atypical manner** is considered sexual intercourse, as **it is written: “The cohabitations of a woman”** (Leviticus 18:22), indicating that there are two forms of sexual intercourse with a woman, vaginal and anal, and there is no halakhic differentiation between them.


###### Sotah 26b:14
[Sotah 26b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/26b:14)

אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: פְּרָט לְשֶׁקִּינֵּא לָהּ דֶּרֶךְ אֵבָרִים. אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: פְּרִיצוּתָא בְּעָלְמָא הִיא, וּפְרִיצוּתָא מִי אָסַר רַחֲמָנָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, Rava said:** It **excludes** a case **where** the husband **issued a warning to** his wife not to engage in intimate contact with another man **by way of** other **limbs,** as this is not considered sexual intercourse. **Abaye said to** Rava: That **is merely licentious** behavior, **and does the Merciful One render** a woman **forbidden** to her husband on account of merely **licentious** behavior, without sexual intercourse? Since this does not render her forbidden to her husband, it is obvious that if the husband issues a warning in this manner, violating the warning does not cause her to become a *sota*. The verse is therefore not required to exclude this case.


###### Sotah 26b:15
[Sotah 26b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/26b:15)

אֶלָּא אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: פְּרָט לְשֶׁקִּינֵּא לָהּ בִּנְשִׁיקָה. הָנִיחָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר הַעֲרָאָה זוֹ הַכְנָסַת עֲטָרָה, אֲבָל נְשִׁיקָה — וְלֹא כְּלוּם הִיא, הַיְינוּ דְּאָתֵי קְרָא לְמַעוֹטֵי נְשִׁיקָה. אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר הַעֲרָאָה זוֹ נְשִׁיקָה, מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, Abaye said:** The verse **excludes** a case **where** the husband **issued a warning to** his wife **with regard to** engaging in genital **contact** without actual penetration. The Gemara asks: **This works out well according to the one who says** that the definition of the **initial stage of intercourse is the insertion of the corona but** that genital **contact is nothing; this is** the reason **that the verse came to exclude** genital **contact. However, according to the one who says** that the definition of the **initial stage of intercourse is** genital **contact, what is there to say?** Why should this case be excluded from the *halakhot* of a *sota*?


###### Sotah 26b:16
[Sotah 26b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/26b:16)

לְעוֹלָם — לְשֶׁקִּינֵּא לָהּ דֶּרֶךְ אֵבָרִים. וּמַהוּ דְּתֵימָא בִּקְפִידָא דְבַעַל תַּלְיָא רַחֲמָנָא, וּבַעַל הָא קָא קָפֵיד, קָמַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Actually,** the verse serves **to** exclude a case **where** the husband **issued a warning to** his wife not to engage in intimate contact with another man **by way of** other **limbs. And** the verse explicitly excludes this case from the *halakhot* of a *sota*, **lest you say that** the woman is rendered a *sota* due to this warning, as **the Merciful One made** this *halakha* **dependent on** the **husband’s objection, and** the **husband objects** to contact of this nature. The verse therefore **teaches us** that this is not considered a warning, as it does not involve sexual intercourse.


###### Sotah 26b:17
[Sotah 26b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/26b:17)

אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: יִשָּׂא אָדָם

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Shmuel says:** It is better that **a man marry**