Kiddushin 81b — the Talmud in English

He said to him

Pelimo:

Sit properly!

Sit decently, and do not disgust us.

He said to him: Give me a cup

[a cup] to drink!

They gave

they gave

him a cup.

He coughed

[he coughed], and

he cast his phlegm into it

[he put his saliva inside the cup].

They shouted at him

[they rebuked him] the members of the household.

He took it and died

[he took it and pretended to be dead].

They heard

the people of the household heard the voices of people calling outside the house,

who were saying

who said:

Pelimo has killed a man!

[Pelimo killed a man].

Pelimo has killed a man!

Pelimo thought that the king’s men were coming to punish him for killing a man, and therefore

he fled and hid himself

[he fled and hid himself]

in the privy.

The Satan

the Satan

went after him,

and

fell before him

[he went after him, and Pelimo fell before him].

When he saw him

the Satan

that he was

Pelimo

suffering, he revealed his identity to him

[he revealed to him who he was].

He said to him

the Satan:

Why did you say this?!

And why did you make a practice of cursing me?

Pelimo said to him:

But how should I say it?

And how, then, must I speak in order to repel you from me, so that you will not cause me to sin?!

The Satan said to him:

Let the master say,

let my master say:

May the Merciful One rebuke the Satan!

Rabbi Hiyya bar Ashi was

was

accustomed, every time

at every time,

that he fell on his face

[in Nefilat Apayim] during his prayer,

he would say: May the Merciful One save us from the evil inclination!

One day, his wife heard him

[she heard him], when he said this.

She said: Since,

behold,

how many years has he separated from me; why does he say this?!

Has he not already separated from me for several years because of his old age, and for what purpose does he still fear the evil inclination?

One day, he was

Rabbi Hiyya bar Ashi

studying in his garden

[studying in his garden].

She adorned

his wife adorned

herself,

with perfumes and balsam, and

she passed by and passed before him again

[she returned, came back, and passed before him].

He said to her:

Who

are you?!

She said

to him:

I am Haruta

[the name of a famous prostitute in the city],

who has returned today

[who returned here today]!

He solicited

Rabbi Hiyya bar Ashi solicited her for an illicit act.

She said to him: Bring me that pomegranate from the top branch!

I will listen to you if you bring me the pomegranate that is on the small branch at the top of this tree.

He jumped

[he jumped to the top of the tree], and

went,

and

brought it to her,

and brought her the pomegranate.

When he came

Rabbi Hiyya bar Ashi and returned

to his house, his wife was stoking the oven

[his wife had lit the oven].

He went up,

Rabbi Hiyya went up,

and sat inside it

[and sat inside the oven]. Because of his great distress over having failed in an illicit act, he wanted to burn himself.

She said to him: What is this?!

What is this thing that you are doing?

He said to her: This and this is what happened.

And he related to her everything that had happened to him in the garden.

She said to him: It was I!

It was not Haruta who enticed you; I myself was the one.

He did not heed her,

he did not believe her,

until she gave him identifying signs,

for she showed him the pomegranate that he had given her.

He said to her:

Even though you were the one, and I did not commit any transgression by this, I still require atonement. For

I, at any rate, intended for a prohibition!

For I intended to sin with that prostitute.

All the days of that righteous man he would fast, until he died by that same death.

And similarly we find in other places that even for the intention of sin alone, atonement is required.

For it was taught:

It is written concerning a woman who made a vow, and her husband annulled her vow: “

The woman shall bear them, and the Lord shall forgive her.”

With what does the verse speak?

But since, once the husband annulled her vow, it is permitted for her to violate it, why does she require forgiveness? —

Rather, the verse speaks

of a woman who vowed a

vow of

a nazirite

[who made herself a nazirite],

and her husband heard and annulled it.

But she did not know that her husband had annulled it, and she was drinking wine and becoming impure through contact with the dead,

which are among the things prohibited to a nazirite.

Thus, even though the woman did not do anything prohibited, nevertheless she requires forgiveness, because she intended to commit a transgression.

Rabbi Akiva, whenever he reached this verse

of “The Lord shall forgive her,”

would weep.

He said: If one who intended to eat pork, but succeeded

in eating

lamb, the Torah said

even though he did not transgress at all in deed, since he intended only to sin,

requires atonement and forgiveness —

one who intended to eat pork, but succeeded

in eating

pork, how much more so

does he require forgiveness and atonement! For he transgressed both in intention and in deed.

Similarly

this

you say, in the reverse of the matter: even when, in terms of intention, he is not a sinner, but only in terms of the deed, he also requires atonement. For it is written concerning a person who sinned inadvertently: “

He did not know, yet he incurred guilt, and he shall bear his iniquity.”

Kogda Rabi Akiva dokhodil do etogo versha, on plakal.

When Rabbi Akiva would reach this verse, he would weep.

He said:

If one who intended to eat forbidden fat

which is permitted to eat, but acted inadvertently,

and succeeded

in eating

forbidden fat

which is prohibited to eat,

the Torah said “

He did not know, yet he incurred guilt, and he shall bear his iniquity.”

One who intended to eat forbidden fat, but succeeded

in eating

forbidden fat, how much more so

does he require atonement.

Isi ben Yehuda says: “

He did not know, yet he incurred guilt, and he shall bear his iniquity” —

over this all those who mourn shall mourn

[shall suffer]

who mourn.

That is to say, everyone who has a heart with which to mourn must mourn over this matter: that even one who sins inadvertently bears iniquity upon himself.

We learned in the Mishna:

A man may seclude himself with his mother.

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav Asi: A man may seclude himself with his sister

occasionally, but he may not reside with her permanently.

And he may reside with his mother and with his daughter,

even permanently. And we are not concerned that he may come with them to an illicit act, because his inclination does not overpower him concerning them, since the Men of the Great Assembly had already abolished this evil inclination.

When

Rav Yehuda said this statement

before Shmuel, he said

to him: It is not so. Rather,

it is prohibited for a man to seclude himself with all the forbidden relations in the Torah, and even with an animal.

His mother, daughter, and sister are included as well.

And we raise a difficulty: How did Shmuel say this?

But

we learned: A man may seclude himself with his mother and with his daughter, and sleep with them in close bodily contact.

A refutation of Shmuel.

And we answer:

Shmuel could say to you, and

even

according to your reasoning

[according to Rav’s method], our Mishna can be difficult from

that which was taught: One’s sister and mother-in-law, and all the other forbidden relations in the Torah, one may not seclude himself with them except in the presence of witnesses.

And it implies that specifically

in the presence of witnesses, yes

[he may seclude himself with them], but

without witnesses,

he

may not

seclude himself with any forbidden relation, and not even with his mother. But this is not like what we learned in our Mishna.

Rather,

necessarily, it is a dispute among

the tannaim,

and I hold in accordance with the tanna of the beraita, who prohibits seclusion with all the forbidden relations.

And similarly we find elsewhere that it is not in accordance with our Mishna.

For it was taught: Rabbi Meir said

to the members of his household:

Be careful with me because of my daughter!

That is to say, do not allow me to seclude myself with her.

And similarly

Rabbi Tarfon said: Be careful with me because of my daughter-in-law!

Do not allow me to seclude myself with her.

That student mocked him.

Rabbi Abbahu said in the name of Rabbi Hanina ben Gamliel: It was not many days before that student stumbled

who had mocked Rabbi Tarfon

with his mother-in-law,

and committed an illicit act with her.

We learned above:

Even with an animal.

Abaye,

when he was found in the field,

would drive them away from the entire field

[he would prevent the animals from being throughout the entire field].

Rav Sheshet would transfer them across the boundary

[he would transfer the animals to the other side of the field’s boundary].

Rav Hanan of Nehardea happened to meet

[encountered]

Rav Kahana at the riverbank,

on the bank of the river.

He saw him sitting and studying, and an animal was standing before him

[he saw Rav Kahana sitting and studying, and an animal was standing before him].

He said to him

Rav Hanan said: Surely

does the master not hold

what we learned in the beraita, that it is prohibited for a person to seclude himself

even with an animal!?

He said to him

Rav Kahana:

It was not on my mind!

I did not notice that there was an animal here.

Rava said:

Although one man may not seclude himself with two women, if they hate one another, it is permitted for him to seclude himself with them, because there is no concern that one will draw the other with her into an illicit act.

Therefore,

a man may seclude himself with two “

sisters-in-law.”

That is, two women married to two brothers, who hate each other like two rival wives married to one man. For each one fears that her husband’s brother may die without children, and his wife will fall before her husband for yibbum, and the two of them will be his wives.

And

it is likewise permitted to seclude himself

with two

women of one man who are

rival wives

to one another, because they hate one another.

And likewise

with a woman and her mother-in-law,

and likewise

with a woman and her mother-in-law’s daughter,

and likewise

with a woman and her husband’s daughter,

for all of them hate one another.

And likewise it is permitted to seclude himself

with a woman

who is an adult, when there is also with her

a little girl who knows the meaning of intercourse but does not surrender herself to intercourse.

That is to say, she knows what intercourse is, and if the man has intercourse with the adult woman, the little one will go and tell of it. But she herself will not surrender herself to intercourse, because, due to her young age, she does not yet have an inclination toward it. Therefore even the adult woman will not have intercourse with him, because she fears that the little girl will publicize it.

We learned in the Mishna: And he sleeps with them [with his mother and daughter] in close bodily contact. And if

they have grown,

this one sleeps in her clothing and

that one sleeps in his clothing.

And we examine this:

And

the children

how many

years old must they be for us to call them “they have grown”?!

Rav Adda bar Rav Azza said in the name of Rav Asi: A little girl —

nine years and one day old.

A boy —

thirteen years and one day old.

They are called grown concerning this matter, such that they are prohibited from sleeping with the father or mother in close bodily contact.

Some say: A little girl —

twelve years and one day old,

and

a boy —

thirteen years and one day old,

they are called grown.

And both this and that,

both according to the first formulation and according to the latter formulation, are not considered grown except

when there will be “

your breasts are firm and your hair has grown.”

That is to say, when they have brought the signs of maturity. For only from then onward are they subject to provocation through them.

But according to the first formulation, from the age of nine years and one day in the case of a girl, and twelve years and one day in the case of a boy, they are already fit for the appearance of signs. But before that, even if they have brought hairs, these are merely in the category of an incidental growth.

And according to the latter formulation, the hairs are not considered signs of maturity before the age of twelve years and one day in the case of a girl, and before thirteen years and one day in the case of a boy.

Rafram bar Pappa said in the name of Rav Hisda: They taught this only

that before then they are permitted to be in close bodily contact,

but

when

she is not embarrassed

the daughter

to stand before him

[before her father]

naked

[when she is naked].

But

if she is

embarrassed to stand before him naked, it is prohibited

for him to sleep with her in close bodily contact.

What is the reason? —

The inclination has clothed her.

From the time that she is embarrassed by the exposure of her body, it is a sign that her inclination has already awakened in her.

Rav Aha bar Abba happened to come to the house of Rav Hisda, his son-in-law

[he happened to come to the house of his son-in-law Rav Hisda].

He took his granddaughter, and

he

seated her in his lap

[he took his daughter’s daughter and placed her in his lap].

He said to him

Rav Hisda said: Surely

does the master not hold that she is betrothed

[do you not know that she has already been betrothed to a man], and you must distance yourself from her according to the law of a married woman?!

He said to him

Rav Aha bar Abba, his father-in-law, said to him: Since you betrothed her while she was a minor,

you have transgressed

the words

of Rav.

As Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav; and some say

that

Rabbi Elazar said: It is prohibited for a person to betroth his daughter when she is a minor, until she grows up and says: I want this particular man!

Rav Hisda said to him:

Master

[Rav Aha bar Abba],

you have also transgressed what Shmuel said.

For

behold,

Shmuel said: One may not make use of a woman,

whereas you are playing with her.

He said to him

Rav Aha bar Abba:

I, in accordance with the other

statement

of Shmuel, hold.