Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

May 30, 2016 | 讻状讘 讘讗讬讬专 转砖注状讜

  • This month's learning is sponsored by the Hadran Women of Silver Spring in memory of Nicki Toys, Nechama bat Shmuel Tzadok.

  • This month鈥檚 learning is sponsored by Shlomo and Amalia Klapper in honor of the birth of Chiyenna Yochana, named after her great-great-grandmother, Chiyenna Kossovsky.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Elaine Hochberg in honor of her husband, Arie Hochberg, who continues to journey through Daf Yomi with her. 鈥淎nd with thanks to Rabbanit Farber and Hadran who have made our learning possible.鈥

Kiddushin 80

If a husband goes abroad with a wife or without a wife and shows up on the scene with or without a wife and with kids – depending on the situation, he may have to prove that the wife’s lineage or that the kids belong to the wife or both or neither. 聽 The gemara then proceeds to discuss presumptive status and how far we take it. 聽The next mishna deals with laws of seclusion, yichud聽– who can be secluded with who and who can’t.


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讘拽讚砖讬 讛讙讘讜诇 讗讘诇 讘讬讜讞住讬谉 诇讗 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讬讜讞住讬谉

The Sages taught that the children鈥檚 attachment to her proves that she is their mother only with regard to the consecrated items of the border, i.e., teruma, meaning that if she is the wife of a priest, her children may partake of teruma. But with regard to lineage, this proof is not relied upon, and her daughters may not marry priests. And Rabbi Yo岣nan says: If the children cling to her they are considered hers in all regards, even with regard to lineage.

讜讗讝讚讗 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪诇拽讬谉 注诇 讛讞讝拽讜转 住讜拽诇讬谉 讜砖讜专驻讬谉 注诇 讛讞讝拽讜转 讜讗讬谉 砖讜专驻讬谉 转专讜诪讛 注诇 讛讞讝拽讜转

The Gemara comments: And Rabbi Yo岣nan follows his standard line of reasoning, as Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: The court flogs one about whom witnesses testify that he violated a prohibition on the basis of presumptive status, even if there is no testimony to definitively establish that the person violated a prohibition, as will be explained. Similarly, the court stones or burns one about whom witnesses testify that he violated a prohibition resulting in court-imposed capital punishment on the basis of presumptive status. But one does not burn teruma on the basis of presumptive status unless there is testimony that it became ritually impure.

诪诇拽讬谉 注诇 讛讞讝拽讜转 讻专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讜讞讝拽讛 谞讚讛 讘砖讻讬谞讜转讬讛 讘注诇讛 诇讜拽讛 注诇讬讛 诪砖讜诐 谞讚讛

How so? The court flogs one about whom witnesses testify that he violated a prohibition on the basis of presumptive status, in accordance with the opinion of Rav Yehuda. As Rav Yehuda says: If a woman had among her neighbors the presumptive status of a menstruating woman, and witnesses testified that her husband engaged in sexual intercourse with her, he is flogged due to her status as a menstruating woman, and there is no need for testimony that she was a menstruating woman.

住讜拽诇讬谉 讜砖讜专驻讬谉 注诇 讛讞讝拽讜转 讻讚专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗讬砖 讜讗砖讛 转讬谞讜拽 讜转讬谞讜拽转 砖讛讙讚讬诇讜 讘转讜讱 讛讘讬转 谞住拽诇讬谉 讝讛 注诇 讝讛 讜谞砖专驻讬谉 讝讛 注诇 讝讛

The court stones or burns one about whom witnesses testify that he violated a prohibition resulting in court-imposed capital punishment on the basis of presumptive status, in accordance with the opinion of Rabba bar Rav Huna. As Rabba bar Rav Huna says: With regard to a man and a woman and a boy and a girl who grew up together in one home as a single family, the presumption is that they are related, even absent witness testimony to that effect. Therefore, they are stoned due to engaging in intercourse with each other if the male child, now an adult, engages in intercourse with the woman, as it is considered incestuous sexual intercourse. And they are burned due to engaging in intercourse with each other if the man engages in intercourse with the female child, now an adult, since she is considered his wife鈥檚 daughter.

讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 驻讝讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 诪砖讜诐 讘专 拽驻专讗 诪注砖讛 讘讗砖讛 砖讘讗转 诇讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讜转讬谞讜拽 诪讜专讻讘 诇讛 注诇 讻转讬驻讛 讜讛讙讚讬诇转讜 讜讘讗 注诇讬讛 讜讛讘讬讗讜诐 诇讘讬转 讚讬谉 讜住拽诇讜诐 诇讗 诪驻谞讬 砖讘谞讛 讜讚讗讬 讗诇讗 诪驻谞讬 砖讻专讜讱 讗讞专讬讛

The Gemara cites a related incident: Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi says that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says in the name of bar Kappara: An incident occurred involving a woman who came to Jerusalem with a child riding on her shoulders, in the manner of a mother and a son, and she raised him, and he eventually engaged in intercourse with her. And they brought them to court and stoned them for violating the prohibition against a mother and son engaging in intercourse. This was not because he was definitely her son, as they had no testimony to that effect, but because he clung to her, and he therefore had the presumptive status of being her son.

讜讗讬谉 砖讜专驻讬谉 转专讜诪讛 注诇 讛讞讝拽讜转 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 砖讜专驻讬谉 注诇 讛讞讝拽讜转 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 砖讜专驻讬谉 讜讗讝讚讜 诇讟注诪讬讬讛讜 讚转谞谉 转讬谞讜拽 砖谞诪爪讗 讘爪讚 讛注讬住讛 讜讘爪拽 讘讬讚讜 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诪讟讛专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 诪讟诪讗讬谉 诪驻谞讬 砖讚专讻讜 砖诇 转讬谞讜拽 诇讟驻讞

Rabbi Yo岣nan stated: But one does not burn teruma on the basis of presumptive status. As Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says: One burns teruma on the basis of presumptive status, and Rabbi Yo岣nan says: One does not burn teruma in this case. The Gemara comments: And they follow their standard lines of reasoning in this matter, as we learned in a mishna (Teharot 3:8): If a ritually impure child is found alongside ritually pure started dough, and he has risen dough in his hand that may have been removed from the larger portion of started dough, Rabbi Meir deems the started dough pure, since there is no proof the child touched it, as he might have been given the piece by someone else. And the Rabbis deem it impure, as they assume that he touched the started dough. The child is presumed to be impure because it is the manner of a child to handle [letappe鈥檃岣] items.

讜讛讜讬谞谉 讘讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 诪讗讬专 拽住讘专 专讜讘 转讬谞讜拽讜转 诪讟驻讞讬谉 讜诪讬注讜讟 讗讬谉 诪讟驻讞讬谉 讜注讬住讛 讘讞讝拽转 讟讛专讛 注讜诪讚转 讜住诪讜讱 诪讬注讜讟讗 诇讞讝拽讛 讗讬转专注 诇讬讛 专讜讘讗 讜专讘谞谉 诪讬注讜讟讗 讻诪讗谉 讚诇讬转讗 讚诪讬 专讜讘讗 讜讞讝拽讛 专讜讘讗 注讚讬祝

And we discussed that case: What is the reasoning of Rabbi Meir? He holds that a majority of children handle items, in this case the dough, that are within reach, and a minority do not handle items within reach, and the dough itself retains a presumptive status of purity, since its impurity has not been definitively determined. And if one appends the minority of children who do not handle items within reach to the presumptive status of purity of the dough, the force of the majority of children who handle items within reach is weakened. Therefore, the dough is considered pure. And the Rabbis contend that in a case where the majority is followed, the minority is considered like it does not exist. Consequently, there is a conflict between the determining factors of the majority of impure children who handle items within reach and the presumptive status of purity of the dough. In that case, the majority takes precedence.

讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 讝讜 讛讬讗 砖砖讜专驻讬谉 注诇讬讛 讗转 讛转专讜诪讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗讬谉 讝讜 讞讝拽讛 砖砖讜专驻讬谉 注诇讬讛 转专讜诪讛

Reish Lakish says in the name of Rabbi Oshaya: This halakha of a child is an example of a presumption, i.e., that children handle items within reach, that one burns teruma based on it, since the Rabbis hold that it is sufficiently established that the dough has become impure to allow it to be burned. Rabbi Yo岣nan says: This is not the presumption that one burns teruma based on it. Rather, the dough is set aside and may be neither eaten nor burned.

讗诇讗 讗讬讝讜 讞讝拽讛 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 砖砖讜专驻讬谉 注诇讬讛 讗转 讛转专讜诪讛 讻讚转谞谉 注讬住讛 讘转讜讱 讛讘讬转 讜砖专爪讬诐 讜爪驻专讚注讬诐 诪讟驻诇讬谉 砖诐 讜谞诪爪讗讜 讞转讬讻讜转 讘注讬住讛 讗诐 专讜讘 砖专爪讬诐 讟诪讗讛 讗诐 专讜讘 爪驻专讚注讬诐 讟讛讜专讛

The Gemara asks: But if so, according to Rabbi Yo岣nan, what is the presumption that one burns teruma based on it? The Gemara answers: As we learned in a baraita: In a case where started dough is in the house, and creeping animals, which impart impurity when dead, and frogs, which do not impart impurity, are also present there, and pieces of an unidentified creature were found in the started dough, if the majority of creatures in the house are creep-ing animals, the dough is impure, since the presumption is that the pieces are from a creeping animal. If the majority are frogs, it is pure.

转谞讬讗 讻讜转讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 砖谞讬 讚讘专讬诐 讗讬谉 讘讛诐 讚注转 诇讬砖讗诇 讜注砖讗讜诐 讞讻诪讬诐 讻诪讛 砖讬砖 讘讛诐 讚注转 诇讬砖讗诇 转讬谞讜拽 讜注讜讚 讗讞专转

The Gemara comments: It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan: There is a principle that when a possible case of impurity cannot be verified, even if it occurred in a private domain, where generally cases of uncertain impurity are deemed impure, it is deemed pure. Two things do not have the capacity to be questioned, i.e., one cannot verify what happened through investigation. Yet in these two cases, the Sages deemed them as things that have the capacity to be questioned and rendered them impure in cases of uncertainty in a private domain. The two cases are that of a child and an additional halakha.

转讬谞讜拽 讛讗 讚讗诪专谉 讜注讜讚 讗讞专转 诪讗讬 讛讬讗 注讬住讛 讘转讜讱 讛讘讬转 讜转专谞讙讜诇讬诐 讜诪砖拽讬诐 讟诪讗讬诐 砖诐 讜谞诪爪讗讜

The case of a child is that which we said concerning a child holding some dough discovered alongside a larger piece of dough. All of the dough is deemed impure, since the child cannot be asked whether or not he rendered the dough impure. And what is the additional one? If pure, started dough was located inside the house, and chickens and impure liquids were present there, and there were found to be

谞拽讜专讬诐 谞拽讜专讬诐 讘注讬住讛 转讜诇讬谉 诇讗 讗讜讻诇讬谉 讜诇讗 砖讜专驻讬谉

small holes in the dough where the chickens had pecked it, in that case the dough is held in suspension; it is neither eaten nor burned, since the chickens may have drunk from the impure liquids before they pecked at the dough but there is no proof of this. Despite this being a case where they cannot be asked, which generally would result in the dough being deemed pure, here it is deemed impure due to the uncertainty. The fact that in the second case of the baraita it is not deemed to be definitely impure supports the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan, who holds that in the case of the child the status of the dough also remains a matter of uncertainty.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讘诪砖拽讬诐 诇讘谞讬诐 讗讘诇 讘诪砖拽讬诐 讗讚讜诪讬诐 讗诐 讗讬转讗 讚谞拽讬专 诪讬讚注 讬讚讬注 讜讚讬诇诪讗 讘诇注转讬谞讛讜 注讬住讛

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: They taught this halakha only in a case of white liquid, when the appearance of the peck marks provides no proof of whether the chickens had previously drunk from the liquid, but in a case of red, impure liquid, if it is so that they had pecked, it would be known that they had drunk from the liquid, since the peck marks would be colored red. The Gemara asks: Even if the liquid were red and there were no red marks on the dough, how can one say definitively that they did not peck? Perhaps the dough absorbed the liquid, leaving no identifiable mark?

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚讘专 讝讛 砖诪注 讘专讬讘讬 讜驻讬专讜砖讜 诇讗 砖诪注 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讘诪砖拽讬诐 爪诇讜诇讬诐 砖讘讘讜讗讛 砖诇 转讬谞讜拽 谞讬讻专 讘讛 讗讘诇 诪砖拽讬诐 注讻讜专讬诐 诇讗

Rabbi Yo岣nan says: The Distinguished, i.e., Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, heard this matter, but he did not hear its interpretation, and he should have supplied an additional detail: They taught this halakha only in a case of clear liquid, which can be absorbed in the dough without leaving a stain. What is meant by clear? It means that in which the reflection [bavua] of a child is recognizable when he peers into it. But in a case of murky liquid, this halakha was not stated, since the liquid would have left a mark.

诪转谞讬壮 诇讗 讬转讬讬讞讚 讗讚诐 注诐 砖转讬 谞砖讬诐 讗讘诇 讗砖讛 讗讞转 诪转讬讬讞讚转 注诐 砖谞讬 讗谞砖讬诐 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讗祝 讗讬砖 讗讞讚 诪转讬讬讞讚 注诐 砖转讬 谞砖讬诐 讘讝诪谉 砖讗砖转讜 注诪讜 讜讬砖谉 注诪讛诐 讘驻讜谞讚拽讬 诪驻谞讬 砖讗砖转讜 诪砖诪专转讜 诪转讬讬讞讚 讗讚诐 注诐 讗诪讜 讜注诐 讘转讜 讜讬砖谉 注诪讛诐 讘拽讬专讜讘 讘砖专 讜讗诐 讛讙讚讬诇讜 讝讜 讬砖谞讛 讘讻住讜转讛 讜讝讛 讬砖谉 讘讻住讜转讜

MISHNA: A man may not be secluded with two women lest he sin with them, but one woman may be secluded with two men. Rabbi Shimon says: Even one man may be secluded with two women when his wife is with him, and in that situation he may even sleep in the same inn with two women, because his wife guards him from sinning with them. They further said that a man may be secluded with his mother, and with his daughter, and sleep alongside them with bodily contact without clothes, since there is no concern that they will engage in sexual intercourse. And when they, the son or daughter, have grown up, this one sleeps in her garment and that one sleeps in his garment, but they may share a bed.

讙诪壮 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 转谞讗 讚讘讬 讗诇讬讛讜 讛讜讗讬诇 讜谞砖讬诐 讚注转谉 拽诇讜转 注诇讬讛谉

GEMARA: What is the reason that a man may not be secluded with two women, but a woman may be secluded with two men? The school of Eliyahu taught: Since women are of light mind they are more easily seduced.

诪谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 专诪讝 诇讬讞讜讚 诪谉 讛转讜专讛 诪谞讬谉 砖谞讗诪专 讻讬 讬住讬转讱 讗讞讬讱 讘谉 讗诪讱

The Gemara asks: From where are these matters, that it is prohibited for a man to be secluded with women, derived? Rabbi Yo岣nan says in the name of Rabbi Yishmael: From where is there an allusion from the Written Torah to the prohibition against seclusion? As it is stated concerning one who incites others to idolatrous worship: 鈥淚f your brother, the son of your mother, entices you鈥 (Deuteronomy 13:7).

讜讻讬 讘谉 讗诐 诪住讬转 讘谉 讗讘 讗讬谞讜 诪住讬转 讗诇讗 诇讜诪专 诇讱 讘谉 诪转讬讬讞讚 注诐 讗诪讜 讜讗住讜专 诇讛转讬讬讞讚 注诐 讻诇 注专讬讜转 砖讘转讜专讛

Rabbi Yishmael considers why the Torah uses the example of 鈥渢he son of your mother.鈥 But is it only the son of a mother who entices? Doesn鈥檛 the son of a father entice? Rather, the verse means to say to you: A son may be secluded with his mother. Consequently, if a woman has two sons from two different husbands, they will both stay close to her. The Torah therefore uses the example of 鈥渢he son of your mother鈥 because half-brothers who share a mother become close to each other. By contrast, half-brothers who share a father will not become close, since one鈥檚 father鈥檚 wife who is not one鈥檚 mother is a forbidden relative. And it is prohibited to be secluded with those with whom relations are forbidden by the Torah.

驻砖讟讬讛 讚拽专讗 讘诪讗讬 讻转讬讘 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诇讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 拽讗诪专 诇讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 讘谉 讗讘 讚住谞讬 诇讬讛 讜注讬讬抓 诇讬讛 注爪讜转 专注讜转 讗诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讘谉 讗诐 讚诇讗 住谞讬 诇讬讛 讗讬诪讗 爪讬讬转讬 诇讬讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

Since this verse merely alludes to the prohibition against seclusion, the Gemara asks: With regard to what is the plain meaning of the verse written, i.e., in the context of enticement to idolatrous worship, why does it emphasize 鈥渢he son of your mother鈥? Abaye said: The verse is speaking utilizing the style of: It is not necessary. It is not necessary to state that one should not be enticed by the son of a father, who hates him due to their rivalry for their father鈥檚 inheritance and therefore gives him bad advice. Rather, the same is true even of the son of a mother, who does not hate him, since they are not rivals for the same inheritance, as each inherits from his own father. One might therefore say that he should listen to him and accept his advice. The verse consequently teaches us that he should pay no heed to his enticements.

谞讬诪讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚诇讗 讻讗讘讗 砖讗讜诇 讚转谞讬讗 讻诇 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 讬讜爪讗 讘讞讬拽 讜谞拽讘专 讘讗砖讛 讗讞转 讜砖谞讬 讗谞砖讬诐 讗讘诇 诇讗 讘讗讬砖 讗讞讚 讜砖转讬 谞砖讬诐 讗讘讗 砖讗讜诇 讗讜诪专 讗祝 讘讗讬砖 讗讞讚 讜砖转讬 谞砖讬诐

The Gemara comments: Shall we say the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Abba Shaul, as it is taught in a baraita: If a child dies any time during the first thirty days after his birth, he is not given a proper funeral but is carried out held in their bosom, not on a bier, and buried by one woman and two men. But he may not be buried by one man and two women, due to the prohibition against seclusion. Abba Shaul says: He may even be buried by one man and two women. This indicates that Abba Shaul deems it permitted for a man to be secluded with two women.

讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 讗讘讗 砖讗讜诇 讘砖注转 讗谞讬谞讜转 转讘讬专 讬爪专讬讛

The Gemara rejects this: You can even say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Abba Shaul, as he permits it only in the case of the baraita, because at the time of acute mourning, i.e., immediately after a close relative has died, one鈥檚 inclination to sin is broken, and there is no concern that he might come to sin.

讜专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 诪讛 讬转讗讜谞谉 讗讚诐 讞讬 讙讘专 注诇 讞讟讗讜 讗驻讬诇讜 讘砖注转 讗谞讬谞讜转讜 砖诇 讗讚诐 讬爪专讜 诪转讙讘专 注诇讬讜 讜讗讘讗 砖讗讜诇 讻讬 讻转讬讘 讛讛讜讗 讘诪转专注诐 注诇 诪讚讜转讬讜 讻转讬讘 讜讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 诪讛 讬转专注诐 注诇 诪讚讜转讬讜 讜讻讬 讙讘专 注诇 讞讟讗讬讜 讚讬讜 讞讬讬诐 砖谞转转讬 诇讜

And the Rabbis, who render seclusion forbidden even then, hold in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Yitz岣k, as Rabbi Yitz岣k says as follows with regard to the verse: 鈥淲hy does a living man complain, a powerful man due to his sins?鈥 (Lamentations 3:39): Even at the time of a person鈥檚 acute mourning, his inclination to sin overpowers him. The Gemara asks: And how does Abba Shaul explain this verse? The Gemara answers: When that was written, it was written with regard to one who complains about God鈥檚 ways. And this is what the verse is saying: Why does one complain about God鈥檚 ways and claim that he has been treated unjustly? Has he overpowered his sins? God responds: The life I have given him is sufficient for him, and he deserves no more.

讜专讘谞谉 讻讬 讛讛讜讗 诪注砖讛 讚讛讛讬讗 讗讬转转讗 讚讛讜讛 注讜讘讚讗 讜讗驻讬拽转讬讛

And the Rabbis are concerned about the possibility of sin even in times of acute mourning, like that incident involving a certain woman, as there was an incident where she removed her husband from his grave. When visiting her husband鈥檚 grave, she engaged in intercourse with a man who was tasked with guarding the body of one executed by the king. Meanwhile, that body was taken, and she suggested that they disinter her husband so that the guard could claim that he fulfilled his task properly. This demonstrates that even at a time of mourning one may succumb to temptation.

讗讘诇 讗砖讛 讗讞转 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讘讻砖专讬诐 讗讘诇 讘驻专讜爪讬诐 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讬 注砖专讛 谞诪讬 诇讗 讛讜讛 诪注砖讛 讜讛讜爪讬讗讜讛 注砖专讛 讘诪讟讛 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 转讚注 讚诪讬讞讘专讬 讘讬 注砖专讛 讜讙谞讘讬 讻砖讜专讗 讜诇讗 诪讬讻住驻讬 诪讛讚讚讬

搂 The mishna teaches: But one woman may be secluded with two men. Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: They taught this halakha only with regard to men of fit morals, but with regard to those steeped in sexual immorality, she may not be secluded even with ten men. There was an incident where ten men carried out a woman on a bier, as though she were dead, and engaged in intercourse with her. Rav Yosef says: Know that this is so, since ten people will join together and steal a heavy beam without being ashamed before one another. Similarly, several men can join together for a licentious act without shame.

谞讬诪讗 诪住讬讬注 诇讬讛 诪讜住专讬谉 诇讜 砖谞讬 转诇诪讬讚讬 讞讻诪讬诐 砖诪讗 讬讘讗 注诇讬讛 讘讚专讱 转诇诪讬讚讬 讞讻诪讬诐 讗讬谉 讗讬谞砖讬 讚注诇诪讗 诇讗 砖讗谞讬 转诇诪讬讚讬 讞讻诪讬诐 讚讬讚注讬

The Gemara suggests: Shall we say the following mishna (Sota 7a) supports him: It was taught with regard to one who is bringing his wife, whom he suspects of having committed adultery [sota], to the Temple to perform the ritual of the bitter water, that they provide him with two Torah scholars to accompany them lest he engage in sexual intercourse with her along the way, as until the ritual has been performed she remains forbidden to her husband? It can be inferred from here: Two Torah scholars, yes; their presence will assure that no one will engage in forbidden intercourse. Regular men, no; there is still a concern that they may engage in intercourse. This indicates that ordinary people are not relied upon with regard to seclusion with a woman. The Gemara rejects this proof: The reason there is a need for them to be Torah scholars is that Torah scholars are different, in that they know

  • This month's learning is sponsored by the Hadran Women of Silver Spring in memory of Nicki Toys, Nechama bat Shmuel Tzadok.

  • This month鈥檚 learning is sponsored by Shlomo and Amalia Klapper in honor of the birth of Chiyenna Yochana, named after her great-great-grandmother, Chiyenna Kossovsky.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Elaine Hochberg in honor of her husband, Arie Hochberg, who continues to journey through Daf Yomi with her. 鈥淎nd with thanks to Rabbanit Farber and Hadran who have made our learning possible.鈥

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Kiddushin 80

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Kiddushin 80

诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讘拽讚砖讬 讛讙讘讜诇 讗讘诇 讘讬讜讞住讬谉 诇讗 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讬讜讞住讬谉

The Sages taught that the children鈥檚 attachment to her proves that she is their mother only with regard to the consecrated items of the border, i.e., teruma, meaning that if she is the wife of a priest, her children may partake of teruma. But with regard to lineage, this proof is not relied upon, and her daughters may not marry priests. And Rabbi Yo岣nan says: If the children cling to her they are considered hers in all regards, even with regard to lineage.

讜讗讝讚讗 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪诇拽讬谉 注诇 讛讞讝拽讜转 住讜拽诇讬谉 讜砖讜专驻讬谉 注诇 讛讞讝拽讜转 讜讗讬谉 砖讜专驻讬谉 转专讜诪讛 注诇 讛讞讝拽讜转

The Gemara comments: And Rabbi Yo岣nan follows his standard line of reasoning, as Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: The court flogs one about whom witnesses testify that he violated a prohibition on the basis of presumptive status, even if there is no testimony to definitively establish that the person violated a prohibition, as will be explained. Similarly, the court stones or burns one about whom witnesses testify that he violated a prohibition resulting in court-imposed capital punishment on the basis of presumptive status. But one does not burn teruma on the basis of presumptive status unless there is testimony that it became ritually impure.

诪诇拽讬谉 注诇 讛讞讝拽讜转 讻专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讜讞讝拽讛 谞讚讛 讘砖讻讬谞讜转讬讛 讘注诇讛 诇讜拽讛 注诇讬讛 诪砖讜诐 谞讚讛

How so? The court flogs one about whom witnesses testify that he violated a prohibition on the basis of presumptive status, in accordance with the opinion of Rav Yehuda. As Rav Yehuda says: If a woman had among her neighbors the presumptive status of a menstruating woman, and witnesses testified that her husband engaged in sexual intercourse with her, he is flogged due to her status as a menstruating woman, and there is no need for testimony that she was a menstruating woman.

住讜拽诇讬谉 讜砖讜专驻讬谉 注诇 讛讞讝拽讜转 讻讚专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗讬砖 讜讗砖讛 转讬谞讜拽 讜转讬谞讜拽转 砖讛讙讚讬诇讜 讘转讜讱 讛讘讬转 谞住拽诇讬谉 讝讛 注诇 讝讛 讜谞砖专驻讬谉 讝讛 注诇 讝讛

The court stones or burns one about whom witnesses testify that he violated a prohibition resulting in court-imposed capital punishment on the basis of presumptive status, in accordance with the opinion of Rabba bar Rav Huna. As Rabba bar Rav Huna says: With regard to a man and a woman and a boy and a girl who grew up together in one home as a single family, the presumption is that they are related, even absent witness testimony to that effect. Therefore, they are stoned due to engaging in intercourse with each other if the male child, now an adult, engages in intercourse with the woman, as it is considered incestuous sexual intercourse. And they are burned due to engaging in intercourse with each other if the man engages in intercourse with the female child, now an adult, since she is considered his wife鈥檚 daughter.

讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 驻讝讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 诪砖讜诐 讘专 拽驻专讗 诪注砖讛 讘讗砖讛 砖讘讗转 诇讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讜转讬谞讜拽 诪讜专讻讘 诇讛 注诇 讻转讬驻讛 讜讛讙讚讬诇转讜 讜讘讗 注诇讬讛 讜讛讘讬讗讜诐 诇讘讬转 讚讬谉 讜住拽诇讜诐 诇讗 诪驻谞讬 砖讘谞讛 讜讚讗讬 讗诇讗 诪驻谞讬 砖讻专讜讱 讗讞专讬讛

The Gemara cites a related incident: Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi says that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says in the name of bar Kappara: An incident occurred involving a woman who came to Jerusalem with a child riding on her shoulders, in the manner of a mother and a son, and she raised him, and he eventually engaged in intercourse with her. And they brought them to court and stoned them for violating the prohibition against a mother and son engaging in intercourse. This was not because he was definitely her son, as they had no testimony to that effect, but because he clung to her, and he therefore had the presumptive status of being her son.

讜讗讬谉 砖讜专驻讬谉 转专讜诪讛 注诇 讛讞讝拽讜转 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 砖讜专驻讬谉 注诇 讛讞讝拽讜转 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 砖讜专驻讬谉 讜讗讝讚讜 诇讟注诪讬讬讛讜 讚转谞谉 转讬谞讜拽 砖谞诪爪讗 讘爪讚 讛注讬住讛 讜讘爪拽 讘讬讚讜 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诪讟讛专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 诪讟诪讗讬谉 诪驻谞讬 砖讚专讻讜 砖诇 转讬谞讜拽 诇讟驻讞

Rabbi Yo岣nan stated: But one does not burn teruma on the basis of presumptive status. As Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says: One burns teruma on the basis of presumptive status, and Rabbi Yo岣nan says: One does not burn teruma in this case. The Gemara comments: And they follow their standard lines of reasoning in this matter, as we learned in a mishna (Teharot 3:8): If a ritually impure child is found alongside ritually pure started dough, and he has risen dough in his hand that may have been removed from the larger portion of started dough, Rabbi Meir deems the started dough pure, since there is no proof the child touched it, as he might have been given the piece by someone else. And the Rabbis deem it impure, as they assume that he touched the started dough. The child is presumed to be impure because it is the manner of a child to handle [letappe鈥檃岣] items.

讜讛讜讬谞谉 讘讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 诪讗讬专 拽住讘专 专讜讘 转讬谞讜拽讜转 诪讟驻讞讬谉 讜诪讬注讜讟 讗讬谉 诪讟驻讞讬谉 讜注讬住讛 讘讞讝拽转 讟讛专讛 注讜诪讚转 讜住诪讜讱 诪讬注讜讟讗 诇讞讝拽讛 讗讬转专注 诇讬讛 专讜讘讗 讜专讘谞谉 诪讬注讜讟讗 讻诪讗谉 讚诇讬转讗 讚诪讬 专讜讘讗 讜讞讝拽讛 专讜讘讗 注讚讬祝

And we discussed that case: What is the reasoning of Rabbi Meir? He holds that a majority of children handle items, in this case the dough, that are within reach, and a minority do not handle items within reach, and the dough itself retains a presumptive status of purity, since its impurity has not been definitively determined. And if one appends the minority of children who do not handle items within reach to the presumptive status of purity of the dough, the force of the majority of children who handle items within reach is weakened. Therefore, the dough is considered pure. And the Rabbis contend that in a case where the majority is followed, the minority is considered like it does not exist. Consequently, there is a conflict between the determining factors of the majority of impure children who handle items within reach and the presumptive status of purity of the dough. In that case, the majority takes precedence.

讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 讝讜 讛讬讗 砖砖讜专驻讬谉 注诇讬讛 讗转 讛转专讜诪讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗讬谉 讝讜 讞讝拽讛 砖砖讜专驻讬谉 注诇讬讛 转专讜诪讛

Reish Lakish says in the name of Rabbi Oshaya: This halakha of a child is an example of a presumption, i.e., that children handle items within reach, that one burns teruma based on it, since the Rabbis hold that it is sufficiently established that the dough has become impure to allow it to be burned. Rabbi Yo岣nan says: This is not the presumption that one burns teruma based on it. Rather, the dough is set aside and may be neither eaten nor burned.

讗诇讗 讗讬讝讜 讞讝拽讛 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 砖砖讜专驻讬谉 注诇讬讛 讗转 讛转专讜诪讛 讻讚转谞谉 注讬住讛 讘转讜讱 讛讘讬转 讜砖专爪讬诐 讜爪驻专讚注讬诐 诪讟驻诇讬谉 砖诐 讜谞诪爪讗讜 讞转讬讻讜转 讘注讬住讛 讗诐 专讜讘 砖专爪讬诐 讟诪讗讛 讗诐 专讜讘 爪驻专讚注讬诐 讟讛讜专讛

The Gemara asks: But if so, according to Rabbi Yo岣nan, what is the presumption that one burns teruma based on it? The Gemara answers: As we learned in a baraita: In a case where started dough is in the house, and creeping animals, which impart impurity when dead, and frogs, which do not impart impurity, are also present there, and pieces of an unidentified creature were found in the started dough, if the majority of creatures in the house are creep-ing animals, the dough is impure, since the presumption is that the pieces are from a creeping animal. If the majority are frogs, it is pure.

转谞讬讗 讻讜转讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 砖谞讬 讚讘专讬诐 讗讬谉 讘讛诐 讚注转 诇讬砖讗诇 讜注砖讗讜诐 讞讻诪讬诐 讻诪讛 砖讬砖 讘讛诐 讚注转 诇讬砖讗诇 转讬谞讜拽 讜注讜讚 讗讞专转

The Gemara comments: It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan: There is a principle that when a possible case of impurity cannot be verified, even if it occurred in a private domain, where generally cases of uncertain impurity are deemed impure, it is deemed pure. Two things do not have the capacity to be questioned, i.e., one cannot verify what happened through investigation. Yet in these two cases, the Sages deemed them as things that have the capacity to be questioned and rendered them impure in cases of uncertainty in a private domain. The two cases are that of a child and an additional halakha.

转讬谞讜拽 讛讗 讚讗诪专谉 讜注讜讚 讗讞专转 诪讗讬 讛讬讗 注讬住讛 讘转讜讱 讛讘讬转 讜转专谞讙讜诇讬诐 讜诪砖拽讬诐 讟诪讗讬诐 砖诐 讜谞诪爪讗讜

The case of a child is that which we said concerning a child holding some dough discovered alongside a larger piece of dough. All of the dough is deemed impure, since the child cannot be asked whether or not he rendered the dough impure. And what is the additional one? If pure, started dough was located inside the house, and chickens and impure liquids were present there, and there were found to be

谞拽讜专讬诐 谞拽讜专讬诐 讘注讬住讛 转讜诇讬谉 诇讗 讗讜讻诇讬谉 讜诇讗 砖讜专驻讬谉

small holes in the dough where the chickens had pecked it, in that case the dough is held in suspension; it is neither eaten nor burned, since the chickens may have drunk from the impure liquids before they pecked at the dough but there is no proof of this. Despite this being a case where they cannot be asked, which generally would result in the dough being deemed pure, here it is deemed impure due to the uncertainty. The fact that in the second case of the baraita it is not deemed to be definitely impure supports the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan, who holds that in the case of the child the status of the dough also remains a matter of uncertainty.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讘诪砖拽讬诐 诇讘谞讬诐 讗讘诇 讘诪砖拽讬诐 讗讚讜诪讬诐 讗诐 讗讬转讗 讚谞拽讬专 诪讬讚注 讬讚讬注 讜讚讬诇诪讗 讘诇注转讬谞讛讜 注讬住讛

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: They taught this halakha only in a case of white liquid, when the appearance of the peck marks provides no proof of whether the chickens had previously drunk from the liquid, but in a case of red, impure liquid, if it is so that they had pecked, it would be known that they had drunk from the liquid, since the peck marks would be colored red. The Gemara asks: Even if the liquid were red and there were no red marks on the dough, how can one say definitively that they did not peck? Perhaps the dough absorbed the liquid, leaving no identifiable mark?

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚讘专 讝讛 砖诪注 讘专讬讘讬 讜驻讬专讜砖讜 诇讗 砖诪注 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讘诪砖拽讬诐 爪诇讜诇讬诐 砖讘讘讜讗讛 砖诇 转讬谞讜拽 谞讬讻专 讘讛 讗讘诇 诪砖拽讬诐 注讻讜专讬诐 诇讗

Rabbi Yo岣nan says: The Distinguished, i.e., Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, heard this matter, but he did not hear its interpretation, and he should have supplied an additional detail: They taught this halakha only in a case of clear liquid, which can be absorbed in the dough without leaving a stain. What is meant by clear? It means that in which the reflection [bavua] of a child is recognizable when he peers into it. But in a case of murky liquid, this halakha was not stated, since the liquid would have left a mark.

诪转谞讬壮 诇讗 讬转讬讬讞讚 讗讚诐 注诐 砖转讬 谞砖讬诐 讗讘诇 讗砖讛 讗讞转 诪转讬讬讞讚转 注诐 砖谞讬 讗谞砖讬诐 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讗祝 讗讬砖 讗讞讚 诪转讬讬讞讚 注诐 砖转讬 谞砖讬诐 讘讝诪谉 砖讗砖转讜 注诪讜 讜讬砖谉 注诪讛诐 讘驻讜谞讚拽讬 诪驻谞讬 砖讗砖转讜 诪砖诪专转讜 诪转讬讬讞讚 讗讚诐 注诐 讗诪讜 讜注诐 讘转讜 讜讬砖谉 注诪讛诐 讘拽讬专讜讘 讘砖专 讜讗诐 讛讙讚讬诇讜 讝讜 讬砖谞讛 讘讻住讜转讛 讜讝讛 讬砖谉 讘讻住讜转讜

MISHNA: A man may not be secluded with two women lest he sin with them, but one woman may be secluded with two men. Rabbi Shimon says: Even one man may be secluded with two women when his wife is with him, and in that situation he may even sleep in the same inn with two women, because his wife guards him from sinning with them. They further said that a man may be secluded with his mother, and with his daughter, and sleep alongside them with bodily contact without clothes, since there is no concern that they will engage in sexual intercourse. And when they, the son or daughter, have grown up, this one sleeps in her garment and that one sleeps in his garment, but they may share a bed.

讙诪壮 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 转谞讗 讚讘讬 讗诇讬讛讜 讛讜讗讬诇 讜谞砖讬诐 讚注转谉 拽诇讜转 注诇讬讛谉

GEMARA: What is the reason that a man may not be secluded with two women, but a woman may be secluded with two men? The school of Eliyahu taught: Since women are of light mind they are more easily seduced.

诪谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 专诪讝 诇讬讞讜讚 诪谉 讛转讜专讛 诪谞讬谉 砖谞讗诪专 讻讬 讬住讬转讱 讗讞讬讱 讘谉 讗诪讱

The Gemara asks: From where are these matters, that it is prohibited for a man to be secluded with women, derived? Rabbi Yo岣nan says in the name of Rabbi Yishmael: From where is there an allusion from the Written Torah to the prohibition against seclusion? As it is stated concerning one who incites others to idolatrous worship: 鈥淚f your brother, the son of your mother, entices you鈥 (Deuteronomy 13:7).

讜讻讬 讘谉 讗诐 诪住讬转 讘谉 讗讘 讗讬谞讜 诪住讬转 讗诇讗 诇讜诪专 诇讱 讘谉 诪转讬讬讞讚 注诐 讗诪讜 讜讗住讜专 诇讛转讬讬讞讚 注诐 讻诇 注专讬讜转 砖讘转讜专讛

Rabbi Yishmael considers why the Torah uses the example of 鈥渢he son of your mother.鈥 But is it only the son of a mother who entices? Doesn鈥檛 the son of a father entice? Rather, the verse means to say to you: A son may be secluded with his mother. Consequently, if a woman has two sons from two different husbands, they will both stay close to her. The Torah therefore uses the example of 鈥渢he son of your mother鈥 because half-brothers who share a mother become close to each other. By contrast, half-brothers who share a father will not become close, since one鈥檚 father鈥檚 wife who is not one鈥檚 mother is a forbidden relative. And it is prohibited to be secluded with those with whom relations are forbidden by the Torah.

驻砖讟讬讛 讚拽专讗 讘诪讗讬 讻转讬讘 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诇讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 拽讗诪专 诇讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 讘谉 讗讘 讚住谞讬 诇讬讛 讜注讬讬抓 诇讬讛 注爪讜转 专注讜转 讗诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讘谉 讗诐 讚诇讗 住谞讬 诇讬讛 讗讬诪讗 爪讬讬转讬 诇讬讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

Since this verse merely alludes to the prohibition against seclusion, the Gemara asks: With regard to what is the plain meaning of the verse written, i.e., in the context of enticement to idolatrous worship, why does it emphasize 鈥渢he son of your mother鈥? Abaye said: The verse is speaking utilizing the style of: It is not necessary. It is not necessary to state that one should not be enticed by the son of a father, who hates him due to their rivalry for their father鈥檚 inheritance and therefore gives him bad advice. Rather, the same is true even of the son of a mother, who does not hate him, since they are not rivals for the same inheritance, as each inherits from his own father. One might therefore say that he should listen to him and accept his advice. The verse consequently teaches us that he should pay no heed to his enticements.

谞讬诪讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚诇讗 讻讗讘讗 砖讗讜诇 讚转谞讬讗 讻诇 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 讬讜爪讗 讘讞讬拽 讜谞拽讘专 讘讗砖讛 讗讞转 讜砖谞讬 讗谞砖讬诐 讗讘诇 诇讗 讘讗讬砖 讗讞讚 讜砖转讬 谞砖讬诐 讗讘讗 砖讗讜诇 讗讜诪专 讗祝 讘讗讬砖 讗讞讚 讜砖转讬 谞砖讬诐

The Gemara comments: Shall we say the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Abba Shaul, as it is taught in a baraita: If a child dies any time during the first thirty days after his birth, he is not given a proper funeral but is carried out held in their bosom, not on a bier, and buried by one woman and two men. But he may not be buried by one man and two women, due to the prohibition against seclusion. Abba Shaul says: He may even be buried by one man and two women. This indicates that Abba Shaul deems it permitted for a man to be secluded with two women.

讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 讗讘讗 砖讗讜诇 讘砖注转 讗谞讬谞讜转 转讘讬专 讬爪专讬讛

The Gemara rejects this: You can even say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Abba Shaul, as he permits it only in the case of the baraita, because at the time of acute mourning, i.e., immediately after a close relative has died, one鈥檚 inclination to sin is broken, and there is no concern that he might come to sin.

讜专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 诪讛 讬转讗讜谞谉 讗讚诐 讞讬 讙讘专 注诇 讞讟讗讜 讗驻讬诇讜 讘砖注转 讗谞讬谞讜转讜 砖诇 讗讚诐 讬爪专讜 诪转讙讘专 注诇讬讜 讜讗讘讗 砖讗讜诇 讻讬 讻转讬讘 讛讛讜讗 讘诪转专注诐 注诇 诪讚讜转讬讜 讻转讬讘 讜讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 诪讛 讬转专注诐 注诇 诪讚讜转讬讜 讜讻讬 讙讘专 注诇 讞讟讗讬讜 讚讬讜 讞讬讬诐 砖谞转转讬 诇讜

And the Rabbis, who render seclusion forbidden even then, hold in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Yitz岣k, as Rabbi Yitz岣k says as follows with regard to the verse: 鈥淲hy does a living man complain, a powerful man due to his sins?鈥 (Lamentations 3:39): Even at the time of a person鈥檚 acute mourning, his inclination to sin overpowers him. The Gemara asks: And how does Abba Shaul explain this verse? The Gemara answers: When that was written, it was written with regard to one who complains about God鈥檚 ways. And this is what the verse is saying: Why does one complain about God鈥檚 ways and claim that he has been treated unjustly? Has he overpowered his sins? God responds: The life I have given him is sufficient for him, and he deserves no more.

讜专讘谞谉 讻讬 讛讛讜讗 诪注砖讛 讚讛讛讬讗 讗讬转转讗 讚讛讜讛 注讜讘讚讗 讜讗驻讬拽转讬讛

And the Rabbis are concerned about the possibility of sin even in times of acute mourning, like that incident involving a certain woman, as there was an incident where she removed her husband from his grave. When visiting her husband鈥檚 grave, she engaged in intercourse with a man who was tasked with guarding the body of one executed by the king. Meanwhile, that body was taken, and she suggested that they disinter her husband so that the guard could claim that he fulfilled his task properly. This demonstrates that even at a time of mourning one may succumb to temptation.

讗讘诇 讗砖讛 讗讞转 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讘讻砖专讬诐 讗讘诇 讘驻专讜爪讬诐 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讬 注砖专讛 谞诪讬 诇讗 讛讜讛 诪注砖讛 讜讛讜爪讬讗讜讛 注砖专讛 讘诪讟讛 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 转讚注 讚诪讬讞讘专讬 讘讬 注砖专讛 讜讙谞讘讬 讻砖讜专讗 讜诇讗 诪讬讻住驻讬 诪讛讚讚讬

搂 The mishna teaches: But one woman may be secluded with two men. Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: They taught this halakha only with regard to men of fit morals, but with regard to those steeped in sexual immorality, she may not be secluded even with ten men. There was an incident where ten men carried out a woman on a bier, as though she were dead, and engaged in intercourse with her. Rav Yosef says: Know that this is so, since ten people will join together and steal a heavy beam without being ashamed before one another. Similarly, several men can join together for a licentious act without shame.

谞讬诪讗 诪住讬讬注 诇讬讛 诪讜住专讬谉 诇讜 砖谞讬 转诇诪讬讚讬 讞讻诪讬诐 砖诪讗 讬讘讗 注诇讬讛 讘讚专讱 转诇诪讬讚讬 讞讻诪讬诐 讗讬谉 讗讬谞砖讬 讚注诇诪讗 诇讗 砖讗谞讬 转诇诪讬讚讬 讞讻诪讬诐 讚讬讚注讬

The Gemara suggests: Shall we say the following mishna (Sota 7a) supports him: It was taught with regard to one who is bringing his wife, whom he suspects of having committed adultery [sota], to the Temple to perform the ritual of the bitter water, that they provide him with two Torah scholars to accompany them lest he engage in sexual intercourse with her along the way, as until the ritual has been performed she remains forbidden to her husband? It can be inferred from here: Two Torah scholars, yes; their presence will assure that no one will engage in forbidden intercourse. Regular men, no; there is still a concern that they may engage in intercourse. This indicates that ordinary people are not relied upon with regard to seclusion with a woman. The Gemara rejects this proof: The reason there is a need for them to be Torah scholars is that Torah scholars are different, in that they know

Scroll To Top