Kiddushin 80aקידושין פ׳ א
The William Davidson Talmudתלמוד מהדורת ויליאם דוידסון
Save "Kiddushin 80a"
Toggle Reader Menu Display Settings
80aפ׳ א

לא שנו אלא בקדשי הגבול אבל ביוחסין לא ורבי יוחנן אמר אפילו ביוחסין

The Sages taught that the children’s 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 Yoḥanan says: If the children cling to her they are considered hers in all regards, even with regard to lineage.

ואזדא רבי יוחנן לטעמיה דא"ר חייא בר אבא א"ר יוחנן מלקין על החזקות סוקלין ושורפין על החזקות ואין שורפין תרומה על החזקות

The Gemara comments: And Rabbi Yoḥanan follows his standard line of reasoning, as Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yoḥanan 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.

מלקין על החזקות כרב יהודה דאמר רב יהודה הוחזקה נדה בשכינותיה בעלה לוקה עליה משום נדה

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.

סוקלין ושורפין על החזקות כדרבה בר רב הונא דאמר רבה בר רב הונא איש ואשה תינוק ותינוקת שהגדילו בתוך הבית נסקלין זה על זה ונשרפין זה על זה

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’s daughter.

א"ר שמעון בן פזי אמר רבי יהושע בן לוי משום בר קפרא מעשה באשה שבאת לירושלים ותינוק מורכב לה על כתיפה והגדילתו ובא עליה והביאום לבית דין וסקלום לא מפני שבנה ודאי אלא מפני שכרוך אחריה

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.

ואין שורפין תרומה על החזקות דאמר ר' שמעון בן לקיש שורפין על החזקות ור' יוחנן אומר אין שורפין ואזדו לטעמייהו דתנן תינוק שנמצא בצד העיסה ובצק בידו ר"מ מטהר וחכמים מטמאין מפני שדרכו של תינוק לטפח

Rabbi Yoḥanan 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 Yoḥanan 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’aḥ] items.

והוינן בה מאי טעמיה דר"מ קסבר רוב תינוקות מטפחין ומיעוט אין מטפחין ועיסה בחזקת טהרה עומדת וסמוך מיעוטא לחזקה איתרע ליה רובא ורבנן מיעוטא כמאן דליתא דמי רובא וחזקה רובא עדיף

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.

אר"ל משום רבי אושעיא זו היא ששורפין עליה את התרומה ר' יוחנן אמר אין זו חזקה ששורפין עליה תרומה

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 Yoḥanan 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.

אלא איזו חזקה לרבי יוחנן ששורפין עליה את התרומה כדתנן עיסה בתוך הבית ושרצים וצפרדעים מטפלין שם ונמצאו חתיכות בעיסה אם רוב שרצים טמאה אם רוב צפרדעים טהורה

The Gemara asks: But if so, according to Rabbi Yoḥanan, 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.

תניא כותיה דרבי יוחנן שני דברים אין בהם דעת לישאל ועשאום חכמים כמה שיש בהם דעת לישאל תינוק ועוד אחרת

The Gemara comments: It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan: 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.

תינוק הא דאמרן ועוד אחרת מאי היא עיסה בתוך הבית ותרנגולים ומשקים טמאים שם ונמצאו

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