More Discussions for this daf
1. Warning against minor acts of impropriety 2. Esnan Kelev, Mechir Zonah 3. Format of Kinuy
4. Exclude a convert 5. Anusah l'Kohen Drinking

Mordechai Torczyner asked:

From the beginning of Sotah, we define Al Taster Im Ish Ploni, and the Rambam writes the same. However, on 26b we are told that Kinuy must mention a specific act of Znus, so much so that mentioning Bi'ah Derech Eivarim is insufficient, because the pasuk mentions Shichvas Zera. So based on 26b, how does Al Tisteri count as Kinuy?

Mordechai Torczyner, Allentown, USA

The Kollel replies:

When we say Al Tisteri Im Ish Ploni is Kinuy this means Al Tisteri Im Ish Ploni to be Mezaneh with him. If the husband warns his wife not to secluded herself with a specific man for any reason other than that he suspects she may be Mezaneh with him, this would not be considered Kinuy. For example if the husband tells his wife do not be alone with this man because he may steal from you, or because I do not want you to talk to him in private, this would not constitute Kinuy.

Rashi in Yevamos 55b (DH leshe'Kina) explains that our Gemara may be talking either when the husband said explicitly that she should not seclude herself with this man lest he be Ba Alehah Derech Eivarim, or alternatively that it is known to everyone that he is warning her as a precaution specifically for this reason and not because he suspects her of anything else.

There is a further explanation of our Sugya to be found in the Meiri, and this also appears to be the opinion of the Rambam (Sotah 3:24). According to this explanation, our Sugya is not discussing Kinuy at all. Our Sugya refers to a case when the husband made a normal Kinuy but the Znus was Derech Eivarim.

Dov Freedman