Kiddushin 80a — the Talmud in English

They taught this only

that they rely on the fact that they follow after her, to presume that they are her sons,

but

with regard to permitting them

to

eating

sacred property of the border,

namely, teruma, which only valid kohanim may eat. And since they regard this valid woman as their mother, they too have the presumption of being valid.

But

to regard them

as genealogically valid, no

—they do not regard them with certainty as the sons of this woman. And if there are daughters among them, they are forbidden to marry a koen. For we still are concerned lest they be the daughters of another woman who is disqualified from marrying a koen, and they are therefore ḥalalot.

And Rabbi Yoḥanan said:

They rely on the fact that she is their mother,

even

with regard to regarding them

as genealogically valid.

And

Rabbi Yoḥanan

followed his own reasoning.

For Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan:

a.

They administer lashes on the basis of presumptions.

It is sufficient that something is established for us as forbidden, even if we do not have clear testimony that the act was indeed a transgression, in order to punish for it with the punishment of lashes.

b. And they did not say this only with regard to the punishment of lashes, but also

they stone and burn on the basis of

the

presumptions.

c.

And

however,

they do not burn teruma on the basis of presumptions.

For if the teruma did not certainly become impure, but according to what is established for us we must assume that it became impure [for example, a child touched it, whom we did not see becoming impure, but who is established as impure because it is his practice to rummage through a garbage heap in which reptiles and carcasses are constantly found], we do not burn it as impure teruma is burned; rather, we suspend it [we neither eat nor burn it] according to the law of uncertainty concerning impurity.

And we explain Rabbi Yoḥanan’s words:

a. “

They administer lashes on the basis of presumptions” —

this is

like

the manner that we found in the words of

Rav Yehuda.

For Rav Yehuda said:

A woman who

was established

as

a menstruant among her neighbors,

who saw that today she was dressed in the garments that she customarily wears during her days of menstruation—if

her husband

had intercourse with her, he

is flogged for her on account of

the prohibition of

a menstruant.

And although it was not clarified by witnesses that she was impure, it is sufficient that she is established as such on the basis of her clothing.

b. And that which he said: “

They stone and burn on the basis of presumptions” \-

One is stoned or burned on the basis of presumptions ” -

this is

like

the manner

that

we found in the words of

Rabba bar Rav Huna.

For Rabba bar Rav Huna said: A man and a woman

with

a boy and a girl, who grew up within

the same

house,

are established for us as husband and wife, and the children are presumed to be their children.

And if the son had intercourse with the woman, they are

stoned, each on account of the other,

because she is presumed to be his mother, and one who has intercourse with his mother—they are both stoned.

And

if the man had intercourse with the daughter, they are

burned, each

on account of the other.

Because she is presumed to be his daughter, and one who has intercourse with his daughter—they are both burned.

Learn from this: even though there is no testimony that they are relatives, it is sufficient that they are established as such in order to punish them with the punishment of death.

Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi said in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, in the name of bar Kappara: There was an incident involving a woman who came to Jerusalem, with a child mounted on her shoulder, and she raised him,

and when he grew up

he had intercourse with her.

And they brought them to the court, and they stoned them.

And

they did not

stone them

because he was certainly her son,

for there were no witnesses concerning this matter.

Rather, because he

was

following after her,

he was established as her son. And solely because of the presumption they stoned them.

c.

And

that which Rabbi Yoḥanan said, “

They do not burn teruma on the basis of presumptions” —

he had already disputed this matter with Resh Lakish.

For Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: They burn on the basis of presumptions.

For teruma that is impure on the basis of a presumption is like certainly impure teruma, and its law is that it is burned.

And Rabbi Yoḥanan says: They do not burn

the teruma because it is established as impure; rather, they suspend it.

And

Rabbi Yoḥanan and Resh Lakish

followed their own reasoning in this matter.

As we learned: A child found beside the dough,

and it is not known whether he is impure or not, and it is known that he touched the dough, for some of the

dough is in his hand—

Rabbi Meir declares

the dough pure.

And the Sages declare it impure: Because it is the practice of a child to smear itself

[to touch] reptiles and carcasses in a garbage heap, and therefore it is presumed impure, and it rendered the dough impure through its touch.

And we raised a difficulty concerning it: What is Rabbi Meir’s reason

for declaring it pure?!

And we answer:

He holds

that Rabbi Meir, even though

the majority of children smear themselves,

nevertheless, there is

a minority

of children who

do not

handle

smear themselves.

And

since the

dough

stands

with an established presumption of purity,

for before the uncertainty before us arose it was pure, we say: Establish the matter on its presumption.

And although elsewhere we follow the majority, here it is different, because there is a presumption opposing it.

And

we say:

Attach the minority

of “those who do not smear themselves”

to the presumption; the majority is weakened

for it

[it is impaired]

by the majority.

That is, the presumption of the dough’s purity prevails over it.

And Rabbi Meir follows his own reasoning, that he is concerned for the minority and holds that it is not completely nullified; and where some clarification joins it, it undermines the majority.

And the Rabbis

hold: Since we follow the majority, the

minority is considered as though it were nonexistent

[as though it did not exist at all]. And since the presumption stands alone against the majority, we have the established ruling:

Majority and presumption—the majority is preferable.

And the reasoning of “the majority of children smear themselves” prevails over the presumption of the dough’s purity.

Resh Lakish said in the name of Rabbi Oshaya:

This presumption of the majority,

this

of “the majority of children smear themselves,”

is

a presumption

on which teruma is burned.

And this is not actually the law of a “presumption,” but the law of a “majority.” Nevertheless, it resembles a presumption, because it is a majority that is not present before us [the majority of the world’s children is not present before us], but this is known to us on the basis of the nature of the world’s majority.

Rabbi Yoḥanan said: This is not a presumption on which teruma is burned.

And this follows his position, that one does not burn teruma on the basis of presumptions, but suspends it.

Rather, which

is the

presumption according to Rabbi Yoḥanan

to which he too concedes

that teruma is burned on its basis?!

He concedes in the case brought below.

As we learned: Dough

found

inside the house, and reptiles

that are impure

and frogs

[which do not transmit impurity through their touch]

are moving about there

[and pieces of their bodies fall in that house].

And pieces were found in the dough,

and it is not known whether the pieces are from the reptiles and rendered it impure, or from the frogs, in which case it is pure—

If the majority

of the animals in the house are

reptiles,

the dough is

impure.

If

the

majority

are

frogs,

it is

pure.

And this majority is “a majority present before us” [which is present before us], and it is unlike the majority of “children who smear themselves,” which is not present before us, but is known to us only by general knowledge.

And in the case of this majority, even Rabbi Yoḥanan concedes that its law is like certainty. And if the teruma is presumed impure on the basis of this majority, it is burned as the law of certain impurity.

It was taught in accordance with Rabbi Yoḥanan: There are two things that have no awareness to be questioned, and the Sages treated them as though they had awareness to be questioned.

A sota is a woman whose husband warned her not to seclude herself with a certain man, and she went and secluded herself with him. The Torah forbade her to her husband and treated her as though she were certainly impure until she drinks the sota waters. This is so even though it was not known with certainty that she had intercourse with him.

And from here we learned that every uncertainty concerning impurity in private domain—its uncertainty is impure. And with regard to this matter, every place in which no more than two people are found is considered a private domain. For even in the case of a sota, there were only two; for if another man besides the woman and the man who had intercourse with her had been there, this would no longer be seclusion.

But a place in which three people are found is like a public domain. And uncertainty concerning impurity in a public domain—its uncertainty is pure.

And we likewise learned from there that only when the uncertainty arose through a person with awareness, who has awareness to be questioned about the uncertainty, do we say that his uncertainty in a private domain is impure. As with the uncertainty of sota impurity, where the uncertainty arose with a woman who has awareness.

But if the uncertainty arose concerning something that has no awareness to be questioned, such as when the impurity came not through a person, then even in a private domain its uncertainty is pure, because we establish it on the presumption of purity.

And the Sages said in a beraita that there are two things which, although they involve an uncertainty concerning “something that has no awareness to be questioned,” and by law should be declared pure, nevertheless the Sages treated them stringently as though they were something that has awareness to be questioned, and declared them impure.

And these are:

a child, and another

thing.

And we explain:

A child—

this is what we said

above, that if the child touched the dough, it is impure, even though he is not certainly impure. And since a child has no awareness to be questioned about the uncertainty, we should have declared this uncertainty pure and established either the dough or the child on a presumption of purity. Nevertheless, the Sages were stringent concerning it and declared it impure. “

And another thing,”

what is it?

As we learned:

Dough

found

inside the house, and

also

chickens and impure liquids

are found

there,