Sotah

WITH THE EXCEPTION OF A MINOR etc. A man  declared the All-Merciful, not a minor. AND ONE NOT A MAN. Whom does this exclude? If I answer that it is to exclude one whose flesh is wasted,  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!  (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  declared the All-Merciful-one who had 'seed' can profane,  but one who had no 'seed' cannot profane; therefore he informs us [that he can profane].  ) 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,  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  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] Raba of Parazika  asked R. Ashi, Whence is the statement which the Rabbis made that there is no adultery in connection with an animal? — Because it is written: Thou shalt not bring the hire of a harlot or the wages of a dog etc.;  and it has been taught: The hire of a dog17  and the wages of a harlot18  are permissible, as it is said: Even both these  — the two [specified in the text are abominations] but not four.20 What is the purpose [of the Scriptural phrase] carnally?  — It is required for this teaching: 'Carnally' 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: As lying with womankind!  But, said Raba, it excludes the case where he warned her against contact of the bodies.23  Abaye said to him, That is Samuel said: Let a man marry