Kiddushin 80b — the Talmud in English

and they were found ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location")

perforated perforated

[holes]

in the dough,

the matter proves that chickens pecked at it.

And from now on, one must be concerned lest beforehand the chickens drank from the impure liquids, and while the impure liquid was moist on their beaks, they pecked at the dough. And behold, it is impure because of the contact of these liquids with it.

Therefore, if it is dough of teruma,

they suspend

it [they treat it as a matter of uncertainty]:

they do not eat

it, for perhaps it is impure,

and

however,

they do not burn

it [as is the law of impure teruma, whose mitzva is burning], for perhaps it is pure.

And although the uncertainty concerns contact with the impure liquids in the chickens’ mouths, which have no awareness [to be questioned], and by law the dough should have been deemed pure, the Sages were stringent with it as with a matter about which there is awareness [to be questioned], and rendered it impure.

And nevertheless, from the fact that it teaches, concerning a child who touched the dough, that according to the fundamental law it is pure, אלא the Sages made it like a matter about which there is awareness [to be questioned], it is proved in accordance with Rabbi Yoḥanan: the Sages rendered the dough impure not so that it should be burned, but only so that it should be suspended.

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: They taught

that the dough is impure

only when

they were found in the house

impure liquids

that were

white,

without color, because then the sign of the liquids is not discernible in the dough.

But when

there were in the house

red liquids,

there is no concern lest 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 immediately be known,

the matter would be known and discernible on the dough. And since the matter is not discernible in it, this is a sign that they did not drink from them.

And we raise an objection:

perhaps

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

it swallowed them

[it swallowed them]—the

dough.

Rabbi Yoḥanan said: This matter he heard from the great one

[the great one of the generation, who is Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi].

But its interpretation

of the matter

he did not hear.

That is, he did not hear the explanation of the matter, that even with red liquids one must distinguish.

And this is their interpretation:

They taught

that the dough is impure

only when

the

liquids

that are impure are

clear,

to the extent

that the reflection of a child is discernible in them

as it is reflected in them when he stands opposite them, like in a mirror. And since they are so clear, they are easily absorbed into it without leaving a sign, and therefore the dough is impure.

But

if the

liquids are cloudy, it is not

that the dough becomes impure when they are not discernible in it, because cloudy liquids are not absorbed into the dough without leaving a sign, but leave a mark upon it. And since they are not discernible in it, certainly the chickens did not bring them onto it.

Mishna:

It is forbidden by Torah law to seclude oneself with the forbidden sexual relations, for this matter causes the uncovering of nakedness [Rambam]. And the Sages forbade seclusion even with an unmarried woman.

a.

A person may not seclude himself

with a woman forbidden to him, even

with two women,

lest they come to transgression.

b.

But one woman may seclude herself with two men.

For one is embarrassed before the other, and there is no concern lest they come to transgression.

But women are light-minded; therefore, it is forbidden for a man to seclude himself even with two women. Since both are easily seduced, one will not fear the other, for the other too will do 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 also

sleeps with them

at night

in an inn

[a lodging, meaning in one house], and there is no concern lest he come to transgression with the forbidden woman, because his wife guards him from committing adultery. And there is no concern lest he come to transgression even if she is asleep.

d.

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

because there is no concern with them that they will come to the uncovering of nakedness.

And he sleeps with them

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

in close bodily contact

[without clothing].

And if they have grown,

the son and the daughter—

this one

[the daughter]

sleeps

with her father

in her covering

[in her clothing],

and this one

[the son]

sleeps

with his mother

in his covering.

Gemara:

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

And we inquire about it:

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 brings the explanation of

the tanna of the school of Elijah:

Since women’s minds are light upon them,

and they are easily seduced to transgression, which is not so with men, whose minds are not as light as theirs.

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

From where are these words

for the prohibition of seclusion with the forbidden sexual relations, from the Torah?

Rabbi Yoḥanan said in the name of

[in the name of]

Rabbi Yishmael: A hint for the

prohibition of

seclusion from the Torah—from where?

As it is stated: [Deuteronomy 13] “

[Deuteronomy 13] “

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

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

And is it so that

specifically your brother who is a

son of a mother

[a brother from the mother]

entices,

whereas a brother who is a

son of a father

[a brother from the father]

does not entice?

And what difference is there in the matter!?

Rather,

here the Torah attributed the son to his mother in order

to tell you

that among all the forbidden sexual relations, only a

son

is permitted to be

alone with his mother

[and because he is frequently with her, he is called “the son of your mother”],

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

And the Gemara discusses:

The plain meaning of the verse—

with what does it deal?

For the plain meaning of the verse speaks about incitement to idolatry. And why did the verse use “the son of your mother” in this matter?

Abaye said: The verse

need not say

it is saying

in the manner of “it is not necessary to say.” For it is written later in the verse, “You shall not consent to him and you shall not listen to him,” and this is what it said:

It is not necessary to say,

there is no need to say concerning a brother who is a

son of a father, who hates him

[who has an inclination of hatred toward you]

and advises him

[and therefore gives him advice]

bad advice,

that there is no need to warn you not to listen to his advice, for this brother is suspected of causing you to stumble, because he has a certain hatred toward you, since you diminish his share in the inheritance of your father. And therefore you yourself should be concerned that he is giving you bad advice, and the Torah did not need to warn you about him—

but even

a brother who is a

son of a mother, who does not hate him

[who does not hate him, because he does not inherit together with him from their father],

I might say, I will obey him

[I will listen to his advice].

Therefore

the verse teaches us

“You shall not consent to him and you shall not listen to him.”

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

And we inquire about it:

Shall we say that our Mishna,

our Mishna, which forbids one man to seclude himself with two women, is

not in accordance with Abba Shaul?

For it was taught:

A person’s child who died near the time of his birth—if his death was

the entire

[within]

thirty days

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

goes out

to the cemetery

in

the

bosom

of a person.

And it is sufficient for him to be

buried

with three escorts, even

with one woman and two men.

And 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.

For 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 bury him. And there is no concern about the prohibition of seclusion.

And the words of Abba Shaul are not like the words of our Mishna, which says that even with one man and two women there is a prohibition.

And we reject this:

Even if you say,

that our Mishna is like

Abba Shaul,

it is also not difficult.

For according to Abba Shaul,

at a time of acute mourning

and distress,

his inclination is broken

[his inclination is broken], and there is no concern that he will come to a matter of transgression.

And

if

the Rabbis hold like

what

Rabbi Yitzḥak

said, that even at a time of distress and acute mourning his inclination may overpower him.

For Rabbi Yitzḥak said:

This is the explanation of the verse in the Scroll of Lamentations [chapter 3]: “

What should a living person complain, a man over his sins?”

“What should he complain?”—what benefit are acute mourning and distress to a person, that he should rely upon them to quiet his inclination? After all,

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

Rather, “living”—as long as he is alive—he must be “a man over his sins” [overcome them]. For if not, his inclination will overpower him and cause him to sin.

And Abba Shaul,

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

When that

verse

is written,

in a person who

complains

and grumbles

about his allotted measure

[about what happens to him; what is measured out to him from Heaven],

it is written.

And this is what the verse is saying:

The verse

“What should he complain”

and grumble, a person

about his allotted measure,

about what happens to him,

and is he

a man over his sins?

After all,

it is enough for him

with

the life that I gave him,

and he is “a living person.”

And the Rabbis

hold: Even if the interpretation of the verse is not like Rabbi Yitzḥak, and even if the words of Abba Shaul are correct, that “at a time of acute mourning his inclination is broken,” nevertheless it is necessary to forbid the seclusion of one man with two women even at the time of burying the child with one man.

Because sometimes there is no acute mourning or distress there, but they pretend as though they are carrying a dead child, and their intention is to engage in transgression.

Like that incident involving a certain woman

[and like the incident that occurred with that woman, who presented herself as though she were going out to bury her child, so that she would be able to engage in transgression].

For there was an incident, and she brought it out

[she brought him out], a living child under the presumption that he was dead, in order to engage in transgression with the man going with her.

We learned in the Mishna:

But one woman

may seclude herself with two men.

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav: They taught

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

only

with two

fit men.

But with

men

of loose morals, even with

[with]

ten

men

also not

may the woman seclude herself.

There was an incident

with 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 engaged in transgression with her.

Rav Yosef said: Know

that this is so, that those who are loose in transgression are not embarrassed before one another,

for ten join together and steal a beam, and they are not ashamed before one another

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

Shall we say that it supports him

Rav Yosef, who said that a woman is not permitted to seclude herself with two men who are loose in transgression?

One who warned his wife not to seclude herself with a certain man, and she violated his words and secluded herself, she is forbidden to her husband, for we are concerned lest she committed adultery with him. Therefore, her husband brings her up to the Temple, and there they give her to drink water into which the scroll of the sota has been erased. And these waters examine her. And if she committed adultery, she dies because of them.

And as long as she has not drunk, she is forbidden to her husband. And if her husband has intercourse with her in prohibition, the waters are no longer effective to examine her. It follows that the Divine Name mentioned in the scroll of the sota is erased for nothing.

And it was taught: One who 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 have intercourse with her on the way.

And then the waters will not examine her, and it follows that the Divine Name is erased for nothing.

And we infer: Only

Torah scholars,

not

[are they fit to accompany them], but

ordinary people, no!

And it entered our mind that it is because of the prohibition of seclusion that we are particular specifically about Torah scholars, because they are fit. And therefore specifically 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. And this is so even though they are two. And this is in accordance with the words of Rav Yehuda in the name of Rav.

And we reject this: It was not because of the prohibition of seclusion that they required specifically Torah scholars. Rather, it is specifically them upon whom one can rely to dissuade her husband from having intercourse with her.