Kiddushin 80b (פ:) — the Talmud in English

And they were found

pierced with holes

[holes]

in the dough,

this proves that chickens pecked at it.

From this point onward, one must be concerned that perhaps beforehand the chickens drank from the impure liquids, and while the impure liquid was still moist on their beaks, they pecked at the dough. Consequently, it is impure due to contact with those liquids.

Therefore, if it is dough of teruma,

it is left in suspension

[it is treated as a matter of uncertainty]:

one does not eat

it, because perhaps it is impure,

and

yet

one does not burn

it [as is the law concerning impure teruma, whose mitzva is to burn it], because perhaps it is pure.

And although the uncertainty concerns contact with the impure liquids in the chickens’ mouths, which have no awareness sufficient to be asked about, and by law the dough should therefore be deemed pure, the Sages treated it stringently as something concerning which there is awareness sufficient to be asked and deemed it impure.

In any event, since it teaches with regard to a child who touched the dough that according to the fundamental law it is pure, but the Sages treated it as something concerning which there is awareness sufficient to be asked, it is evident that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yohanan: The Sages rendered the dough impure only to leave it in suspension, not to burn it.

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: They taught

that the dough is impure

only with regard to

cases in which there were found in the house

liquids

that were impure and

white,

without color, because then there is no recognizable indication of the liquids in the dough.

But with regard to

cases in which there were

red liquids in the house,

there is no concern that perhaps the chickens brought them to the dough, because

if it is so that they pecked

[if indeed the chickens pecked at the dough while the red liquids were in their mouths],

it would be immediately known,

the matter would be known and recognizable on the dough. Since it is not recognizable in it, this is an indication that the chickens did not drink from those liquids.

The Gemara raises a difficulty:

Perhaps

they indeed drank from them, and the reason that the matter is not recognizable on the dough is that

it absorbed them

[it absorbed them], the

dough.

Rabbi Yohanan said: He heard this matter from a great sage

[the leading sage of the generation, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi].

But its interpretation

of the matter, he

did not hear.

That is, he did not hear the explanation that even with regard to red liquids a distinction must be made.

And this is the interpretation of the matter:

They taught

that the dough is impure

only with regard to

a case in which the

liquids

that were impure

are clear, to the extent

that

the reflection of a child is visible in them

when it is reflected in them, when he stands facing them, as in a mirror. Since they are so clear, they can be absorbed into the dough without leaving a recognizable trace; therefore the dough is impure.

But

if the

liquids are cloudy, it is not

the case that the dough becomes impure when they are not recognizable in it, because cloudy liquids are not absorbed into dough without leaving a recognizable trace; rather, they leave a mark on its surface. Since they are not recognizable in it, certainly the chickens did not bring them onto it.

Mishna:

It is prohibited by Torah law to seclude oneself with forbidden sexual relations, as this can lead to sexual transgression [Rambam]. And the Sages prohibited seclusion even with an unmarried woman.

a.

A man may not seclude himself

with a woman forbidden to him, even

with two women,

lest they come to commit a transgression.

b.

But one woman may seclude herself with two men.

Because one is embarrassed before the other, and there is no concern that they will come to commit a transgression.

But women are of weaker resolve; therefore, it is prohibited for a man to seclude himself even with two women. Since both are readily seduced, neither fears the other, as the other too will do the same as she does.

Rabbi Shimon

disagrees and

says: Even one man may seclude himself with two women,

just as one woman is permitted to seclude herself with two men.

c.

And when his wife is with him,

there is no prohibition of seclusion according to everyone, even with one woman. Therefore, he may also

sleep with them

at night

at an inn

[a lodging place, meaning in one house], and there is no concern that he will come to commit a transgression with the forbidden woman, because his wife guards him from engaging in adultery. There is no concern that he will come to commit a transgression even if she is asleep.

d.

A man may seclude himself with his mother and with his daughter,

because there is no concern that they will come to engage in forbidden sexual relations.

And he may sleep with them

[a young son with his mother, and likewise a father with his young daughter]

in bodily proximity

[without clothing].

But if they mature,

the son and daughter—

the former

[the daughter]

sleeps

with her father

in her clothing

[with her garments], while

the latter

[the son]

sleeps

with his mother

in his clothing.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: A man may not seclude himself with two women, but one woman may seclude herself with two men.

The Gemara asks:

What is the reason

that they were more concerned about one man and two women than about two men and one woman?

And the Gemara cites the explanation of

the tanna of the school of Elijah:

Since women are of weaker resolve,

and are readily seduced into committing a transgression, unlike men, whose resolve is not as weak as theirs.

The Gemara now explains the source of the prohibition of seclusion:

From where are these matters

concerning the prohibition by Torah law of seclusion with forbidden sexual relations derived?

Rabbi Yohanan said in the name of

[in the name of]

Rabbi Yishmael: A hint to the

prohibition of

seclusion by Torah law—where is it derived?

As it is stated: [Deuteronomy 13] “

When your brother, the son of your mother, incites you

in secret, saying: Let us go and worship other gods.”

But

is it specifically a brother who is

a son of the mother,

an inciter

[a maternal brother, who is accustomed to inciting], whereas a brother who is

a son of the father

[a paternal brother]

does not incite?

What distinction is there in this matter

?

!?

Rather,

here the Torah attributed the son to his mother in order

to teach you

that among all the forbidden sexual relations, only a

son

is permitted

to seclude himself with his mother

[and consequently he is frequently found with her, which is why he is called “the son of your mother”], whereas

it is prohibited to seclude oneself with all the forbidden relations in the Torah.

The Gemara discusses this:

The plain meaning of the verse—

with regard to what is it written?

For the plain meaning of the verse concerns incitement to idolatry. Why, in this context, does Scripture mention “the son of your mother”?

Abaye said: The verse

is using the expression “it is not necessary to say”; it

says

as follows. The continuation of the verse states: “You shall not consent to him or listen to him,” and this is what it says:

It is not necessary to say

that with regard to a brother who is

a son of the father, who hates you

[who has a tendency to hate you]

and gives you

[and therefore gives you]

bad advice,

there is no need to warn you not to listen to his advice, since this brother is suspect of causing you to stumble: He has a certain hatred toward you because you diminish his share in your father’s inheritance. Therefore, you should be concerned on your own that he may be giving you bad advice, and the Torah did not need to warn you about him—

Rather, even

a brother who is

a son of the mother, who does not hate you

[as he does not inherit together with you from your father’s inheritance],

I might say: I will obey him

[I will listen to his advice].

Therefore,

the verse teaches us

“You shall not consent to him or listen to him.”

We learned in the Mishna: But one woman may seclude herself with two men.

The Gemara asks:

Shall we say that our Mishna,

which prohibits one man from secluding himself with two women, is

not in accordance with Abba Shaul?

As it was taught:

A person’s child who dies soon after birth—if he dies

within

[within]

thirty days

of his birth, there is no need to honor him in death and take him out for burial on a bier or in a coffin; rather, he

goes out

to the cemetery

within

the

bosom

of a person.

It is sufficient for him to be

buried

with three escorts, even

with one woman and two men.

There is no concern about the prohibition of seclusion when they go out to bury him beyond the city.

But they may not

bury him

with one man and two women.

Since the cemeteries were not near the city, there is concern here about the prohibition of seclusion.

Abba Shaul says: Even with one man and two women

they may bury him. There is no concern about the prohibition of seclusion.

The statement of Abba Shaul is not in accordance with our Mishna, which says that there is a prohibition even with one man and two women.

The Gemara rejects this:

Even if you say

that the Mishna is in accordance with

Abba Shaul,

it is also not difficult.

According to Abba Shaul,

at a time of acute mourning

and distress,

his inclination is broken

[his inclination is subdued], and there is no concern that he will come to commit a transgression.

And

if

the Sages hold in accordance with

what

Rabbi Yitzhak

said, that even at a time of distress and acute mourning a person’s inclination may overcome him,

as Rabbi Yitzhak said: This is the explanation of the verse in the Scroll of Lamentations [chapter 3]: “

What shall a living person complain, a man over his sins”—

“What shall he complain” means: What benefit does acute mourning and distress provide a person, that he should rely on them to quiet his inclination? After all,

even at the time of a person’s acute mourning, his inclination overcomes him!

Even at the time of a person’s acute mourning, his inclination overpowers him!

Rather, “living”—so long as he is alive—he must be “a man over his sins” [overcoming them]. Otherwise, his inclination will overcome him and cause him to sin.

And Abba Shaul,

who holds that at a time of acute mourning his inclination is broken, maintains:

When that

verse

is written about

a person who

complains

and laments

his lot

[his circumstances; what Heaven measures out to him], it

is written.

And this is what the verse is saying:

“

What shall he complain”

and lament, a person,

about his lot,

about what happens to him?

And is he

a man over his sins?

After all,

it is enough for him

that he has

the life that I gave him,

and he is “a living person.”

And the Sages

hold that even if the verse is interpreted unlike Rabbi Yitzhak, and even if Abba Shaul’s statement that “at a time of acute mourning his inclination is broken” is correct, it is nevertheless necessary to prohibit one man from secluding himself with two women even while the infant is being taken for burial by one man.

This is because sometimes there is no actual acute mourning or distress; rather, they pretend that they are carrying a dead infant, while their intention is to commit a transgression.

As in that incident involving a certain woman

[and like the incident that occurred with a certain woman, who made it appear that she was going out to bury her infant so that she could commit a transgression].

There was an incident, and she brought it out

[she brought it out], a living infant under the pretense that it was dead, in order to commit a transgression with the man accompanying her.

We learned in the Mishna:

But one woman

may seclude herself with two men.

Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: They taught

that it is permitted for one woman to be with two men

only

when the two men are

upright.

But with

men who are

promiscuous, even with

[with]

ten

men,

it is also not

permitted for the woman to seclude herself.

There was an incident

involving one married woman,

and ten men took her out

men

on a bier,

as though she had died, in order to bury her, and afterward they committed a transgression with her.

Rav Yosef said: Know

that this is so, for those who are promiscuous in matters of transgression are not embarrassed before one another,

as ten thieves join together to steal a beam, and are not embarrassed before one another

[for ten thieves join together to steal a heavy beam, and are not embarrassed to sin in one another’s presence].

Shall we say that this supports him,

Rav Yosef, who said that a woman may not seclude herself with two promiscuous men?

If a man warned his wife not to seclude herself with a certain man, and she violated his words and secluded herself, she is prohibited to her husband, because we are concerned that perhaps she committed adultery with him. Therefore, her husband brings her up to the Temple, where they give her water into which the scroll of the sota was erased. These waters test her. If she committed adultery, she dies because of them.

And as long as she has not drunk, she remains prohibited to her husband. If her husband engages in intercourse with her, in violation of the prohibition, the waters can no longer test her. It follows that the Divine Name mentioned in the scroll of the sota was erased for nothing.

And it was taught: If a man warned his wife, and she secluded herself, and he brings her from his city to the Temple,

they give him

the court of his city

two Torah scholars

to guard him,

lest he engage in intercourse with her on the way.

In that event, the waters would not test her, and the Divine Name would have been erased for nothing.

And we infer: Only

Torah scholars

are

[fit to accompany them], but

ordinary people are not!

And it initially entered our minds that the reason we insist specifically on Torah scholars is the prohibition of seclusion, since they are upright. Therefore, only they are permitted to seclude themselves with the woman.

But

ordinary people,

who are not Torah scholars,

are not

fit to accompany her because of the prohibition of seclusion, even though there are two of them. This is in accordance with the statement of Rav Yehuda in the name of Rav.

The Gemara rejects this: The reason they specifically required Torah scholars is not the prohibition of seclusion. Rather, only with regard to them can one rely on the fact that they will dissuade her husband from engaging in intercourse with her.