Yevamot

— It is arrived at by an analogy between the two expressions of 'coming'. Whence [the prohibition of a yebamah]  to a stranger?  — If [one follows] him who holds that it  is a negative precept,  [it Whence [its  force  in respect of the kinyan], between husband and wife? — It is arrived at by comparison between the expressions of 'taking'. Raba said: For what purpose did the All Merciful write 'carnally' in connection with the designated bondmaid,  a married woman,  and a sotah?  That in connection with the designated bondmaid [is required] as has just been explained.  That in connection with a married woman excludes intercourse with a relaxed membrum.18  This is a satisfactory interpretation in accordance with the view of him who maintains that if one cohabited with forbidden relatives with relaxed membrum he is exonerated;  what, however, can be said, according to him who maintains [that for such an act one is] guilty? — The exclusion is rather that of intercourse with a dead woman.20  Since it might have been assumed that, as [a wife], even after her death, is described as his kin,  one should be guilty for [intercourse with] her [as for that] with a married woman, hence we were taught [that one is exonerated]. What was the object of that  of the sotah? — Such as was taught: Carnally  excludes [the case where the husband's warning was] concerning something else. What is meant by 'something else'? R. Shesheth replied: The exclusion is the case where he warned her concerning unnatural intercourse. Said Raba to him: The text reads, As with womankind!  — Rather, said Raba, the exclusion is the case where the husband's warning concerned lecherous contact of her limbs. Said Abaye to him: Has the All Merciful forbidden [a wife to her husband] because of obscenity?  — Rather, said Abaye, the exclusion is the case where the husband's warning was concerning superficial contact.  This is a satisfactory explanation according to him who maintains that the first stage of contact  is the insertion of the corona;  what can be said, however, according to him who maintains that it  is the superficial contact!  — The exclusion is rather the case where he warned her concerning lecherous contact of her limbs; but  it was necessary [to state it, because] it might have been assumed that, as the All Merciful has made the prohibition  dependent on the objection of the husband,  [the woman should here be forbidden] since he objected,  hence we were taught [that such a case is excluded]. Samuel stated: The first stage is constituted by superficial contact.  This may be compared to a man who puts his finger to his mouth; it is impossible for him not to press down the flesh. When Rabbah b. Bar Hana came  he stated in the name of R. Johanan: Consummation in the case of a designated bondmaid is constituted by the insertion of the corona. R. Shesheth raised an objection: 'Carnally  implies that guilt is incurred only when intercourse was accompanied by friction';  does not this refer to friction of the membrum! — No; friction of the corona. When R. Dimi came  he stated in the name of R. Johanan: The first stage is constituted by the insertion of the corona. They said to him: But, surely, Rabbah b. Bar Hana did not say so! — He replied: Then either he is the story-teller  or I. When Rabin came  he stated in the name of R. Johanan, 'The first stage is constituted by the insertion of the corona'. He is certainly in disagreement with the report of Rabbah b. Bar Hana.  Must it be said, however, that he differs also from Samuel?  — No; [the entire process] from the superficial contact until the insertion of the corona is described as the first stage. When R. Samuel b. Judah came  he stated in the name of R. Johanan, 'The first stage is constituted by the insertion of the corona; and the final stage, by actual consummation.