לֹא יִתְיַחֵד אָדָם עִם שְׁתֵּי נָשִׁים, אֲבָל אִשָּׁה אַחַת מִתְיַחֶדֶת עִם שְׁנֵי אֲנָשִׁים. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר, אַף אִישׁ אֶחָד מִתְיַחֵד עִם שְׁתֵּי נָשִׁים בִּזְמַן שֶׁאִשְׁתּוֹ עִמּוֹ וְיָשֵׁן עִמָּהֶם בְּפֻנְדְּקִי, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאִשְׁתּוֹ מְשַׁמַּרְתּוֹ. מִתְיַחֵד אָדָם עִם אִמּוֹ וְעִם בִּתּוֹ, וְיָשֵׁן עִמָּהֶם בְּקֵרוּב בָּשָׂר. וְאִם הִגְדִּילוּ, זוֹ יְשֵׁנָה בִכְסוּתָהּ וְזֶה יָשֵׁן בִּכְסוּתוֹ:
(12) One man may not be secluded with two women, but one woman may be secluded with two men. Rabbi Shimon says, "Even one man may be secluded with two women when his wife is with him; and he may sleep in the same inn with two women, because his wife guards him." A person may be secluded with his mother or with his daughter, and may [even] sleep with them in bodily contact. And if they grow up, this one should sleep in her garment, and this one should sleep in his garment.
סנהדרין ס"ד: א
חבשוהו תלתא יומי, איבעו ביעתא בת יומא לחולה, ולא אשכחו.
אמרו: היכי נעביד? ניבעי פלגא! פלגא מרקיעא לא יהבי, כחלינהו לעיניה.
אהני ביה דלא איגרי איניש בקרובתיה.
מנא הני מילי? א"ר יוחנן משום ר' ישמעאל: רמז ליחוד מן התורה מנין? שנאמר: (דברים יג, ז) "כי יסיתך אחיך בן אמך" וכי בן אם מסית בן אב אינו מסית?!
אלא לומר לך: בן מתייחד עם אמו, ואסור להתייחד עם כל עריות שבתורה.
small holes in the dough where the chickens had pecked it, in that case the dough is held in suspension; it is neither eaten nor burned, since the chickens may have drunk from the impure liquids before they pecked at the dough but there is no proof of this. Despite this being a case where they cannot be asked, which generally would result in the dough being deemed pure, here it is deemed impure due to the uncertainty. The fact that in the second case of the baraita it is not deemed to be definitely impure supports the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan, who holds that in the case of the child the status of the dough also remains a matter of uncertainty. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: They taught this halakha only in a case of white liquid, when the appearance of the peck marks provides no proof of whether the chickens had previously drunk from the liquid, but in a case of red, impure liquid, if it is so that they had pecked, it would be known that they had drunk from the liquid, since the peck marks would be colored red. The Gemara asks: Even if the liquid were red and there were no red marks on the dough, how can one say definitively that they did not peck? Perhaps the dough absorbed the liquid, leaving no identifiable mark? Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The Distinguished, i.e., Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, heard this matter, but he did not hear its interpretation, and he should have supplied an additional detail: They taught this halakha only in a case of clear liquid, which can be absorbed in the dough without leaving a stain. What is meant by clear? It means that in which the reflection [bavua] of a child is recognizable when he peers into it. But in a case of murky liquid, this halakha was not stated, since the liquid would have left a mark. MISHNA: A man may not be secluded with two women lest he sin with them, but one woman may be secluded with two men. Rabbi Shimon says: Even one man may be secluded with two women when his wife is with him, and in that situation he may even sleep in the same inn with two women, because his wife guards him from sinning with them. They further said that a man may be secluded with his mother, and with his daughter, and sleep alongside them with bodily contact without clothes, since there is no concern that they will engage in sexual intercourse. And when they, the son or daughter, have grown up, this one sleeps in her garment and that one sleeps in his garment, but they may share a bed. GEMARA: What is the reason that a man may not be secluded with two women, but a woman may be secluded with two men? The school of Eliyahu taught: Since women are of light mind they are more easily seduced. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters, that it is prohibited for a man to be secluded with women, derived? Rabbi Yoḥanan says in the name of Rabbi Yishmael: From where is there an allusion from the Written Torah to the prohibition against seclusion? As it is stated concerning one who incites others to idolatrous worship: “If your brother, the son of your mother, entices you” (Deuteronomy 13:7). Rabbi Yishmael considers why the Torah uses the example of “the son of your mother.” But is it only the son of a mother who entices? Doesn’t the son of a father entice? Rather, the verse means to say to you: A son may be secluded with his mother. Consequently, if a woman has two sons from two different husbands, they will both stay close to her. The Torah therefore uses the example of “the son of your mother” because half-brothers who share a mother become close to each other. By contrast, half-brothers who share a father will not become close, since one’s father’s wife who is not one’s mother is a forbidden relative. And it is prohibited to be secluded with those with whom relations are forbidden by the Torah. Since this verse merely alludes to the prohibition against seclusion, the Gemara asks: With regard to what is the plain meaning of the verse written, i.e., in the context of enticement to idolatrous worship, why does it emphasize “the son of your mother”? Abaye said: The verse is speaking utilizing the style of: It is not necessary. It is not necessary to state that one should not be enticed by the son of a father, who hates him due to their rivalry for their father’s inheritance and therefore gives him bad advice. Rather, the same is true even of the son of a mother, who does not hate him, since they are not rivals for the same inheritance, as each inherits from his own father. One might therefore say that he should listen to him and accept his advice. The verse consequently teaches us that he should pay no heed to his enticements. The Gemara comments: Shall we say the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Abba Shaul, as it is taught in a baraita: If a child dies any time during the first thirty days after his birth, he is not given a proper funeral but is carried out held in their bosom, not on a bier, and buried by one woman and two men. But he may not be buried by one man and two women, due to the prohibition against seclusion. Abba Shaul says: He may even be buried by one man and two women. This indicates that Abba Shaul deems it permitted for a man to be secluded with two women. The Gemara rejects this: You can even say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Abba Shaul, as he permits it only in the case of the baraita, because at the time of acute mourning, i.e., immediately after a close relative has died, one’s inclination to sin is broken, and there is no concern that he might come to sin. And the Rabbis, who render seclusion forbidden even then, hold in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Yitzḥak, as Rabbi Yitzḥak says as follows with regard to the verse: “Why does a living man complain, a powerful man due to his sins?” (Lamentations 3:39): Even at the time of a person’s acute mourning, his inclination to sin overpowers him. The Gemara asks: And how does Abba Shaul explain this verse? The Gemara answers: When that was written, it was written with regard to one who complains about God’s ways. And this is what the verse is saying: Why does one complain about God’s ways and claim that he has been treated unjustly? Has he overpowered his sins? God responds: The life I have given him is sufficient for him, and he deserves no more. And the Rabbis are concerned about the possibility of sin even in times of acute mourning, like that incident involving a certain woman, as there was an incident where she removed her husband from his grave. When visiting her husband’s grave, she engaged in intercourse with a man who was tasked with guarding the body of one executed by the king. Meanwhile, that body was taken, and she suggested that they disinter her husband so that the guard could claim that he fulfilled his task properly. This demonstrates that even at a time of mourning one may succumb to temptation. § The mishna teaches: But one woman may be secluded with two men. Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: They taught this halakha only with regard to men of fit morals, but with regard to those steeped in sexual immorality, she may not be secluded even with ten men. There was an incident where ten men carried out a woman on a bier, as though she were dead, and engaged in intercourse with her. Rav Yosef says: Know that this is so, since ten people will join together and steal a heavy beam without being ashamed before one another. Similarly, several men can join together for a licentious act without shame. The Gemara suggests: Shall we say the following mishna (Sota 7a) supports him: It was taught with regard to one who is bringing his wife, whom he suspects of having committed adultery [sota], to the Temple to perform the ritual of the bitter water, that they provide him with two Torah scholars to accompany them lest he engage in sexual intercourse with her along the way, as until the ritual has been performed she remains forbidden to her husband? It can be inferred from here: Two Torah scholars, yes; their presence will assure that no one will engage in forbidden intercourse. Regular men, no; there is still a concern that they may engage in intercourse. This indicates that ordinary people are not relied upon with regard to seclusion with a woman. The Gemara rejects this proof: The reason there is a need for them to be Torah scholars is that Torah scholars are different, in that they know
"מתייחד אדם עם אמו" אמר רב יהודה אמר רב אסי: מתייחד אדם עם אחותו ודר עם אמו ועם בתו.
כי אמרה קמיה דשמואל, אמר: אסור להתייחד עם כל עריות שבתורה ואפילו עם בהמה. "ואפילו עם בהמה"
אביי-מכלליה מכולה דברא.
רב ששת-מעבר ליה מצרא.
Sit properly and do not act in a revolting manner. Satan then said to him: Give me a cup. They gave him a cup. He coughed up his phlegm and spat it into the cup. They berated him for acting this way, at which point Satan pretended to sink down and die. They heard people around them saying: Peleimu killed a man! Peleimu killed a man! Peleimu fled and hid himself in the bathroom. Satan followed him and fell before him. Upon seeing that Peleimu was suffering, he revealed himself to him. Satan said to him: What is the reason that you spoke this way, provoking me by saying: An arrow in the eye of Satan? He replied: But what then should I say? Satan said to him: Let the Master, i.e., Peleimu, say: Let the Merciful One rebuke the Satan. The Gemara relates: Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Ashi was accustomed to say, whenever he would fall on his face in prayer: May the Merciful One save us from the evil inclination. One day his wife heard him saying this prayer. She said: After all, it has been several years since he has withdrawn from engaging in intercourse with me due to his advanced years. What is the reason that he says this prayer, as there is no concern that he will engage in sinful sexual behavior? One day, while he was studying in his garden, she adorned herself and repeatedly walked past him. He said: Who are you? She said: I am Ḥaruta, a well-known prostitute, returning from my day at work. He propositioned her. She said to him: Give me that pomegranate from the top of the tree as payment. He leapt up, went, and brought it to her, and they engaged in intercourse. When he came home, his wife was lighting a fire in the oven. He went and sat inside it. She said to him: What is this? He said to her: Such and such an incident occurred; he told her that he engaged in intercourse with a prostitute. She said to him: It was I. He paid no attention to her, thinking she was merely trying to comfort him, until she gave him signs that it was indeed she. He said to her: I, in any event, intended to transgress. The Gemara relates: All the days of that righteous man he would fast for the transgression he intended to commit, until he died by that death in his misery. The Gemara explains the source that one who intended to transgress is punished even though he did not actually sin. As it is taught in a baraita concerning a husband who nullified the vow of his wife: “Her husband has made them null; and the Lord will forgive her” (Numbers 30:13). With regard to what case is the verse speaking? Why would the woman require forgiveness if her husband has nullified her vow? It is referring to a woman who vowed to be a nazirite, and her husband heard and nullified her vow. And she did not know that her husband had nullified her vow, and she drank wine and contracted impurity from a corpse, violating her presumed vow. The Gemara relates: When Rabbi Akiva came to this verse he would cry. He said: And if with regard to one who intended to eat pork, and kosher lamb came up in his hand, like this woman who intended to violate her vow but in fact did not, the Torah nevertheless says: She requires atonement and forgiveness, all the more so does one who intended to eat pork and pork came up in his hand require atonement and forgiveness. In a similar manner, you can say that the same lesson can be derived from the verse: “Though he know it not, yet is he guilty, and shall bear his iniquity” (Leviticus 5:17). When Rabbi Akiva came to this verse he would cry. He said: And if with regard to one who intended to eat permitted fat, and forbidden fat mistakenly came up in his hand, the Torah states: “Though he know it not, yet is he guilty, and shall bear his iniquity,” all the more so is this true for one who intended to eat forbidden fat and forbidden fat came up in his hand. Isi ben Yehuda says with regard to the verse “Though he know it not, yet is he guilty, and shall bear his iniquity”: With regard to this matter all sufferers shall grieve, since the verse teaches that one is punished even for sinning unawares. § The mishna teaches that a man may be secluded with his mother. Rav Yehuda says that Rav Asi says: A man may be secluded with his sister, and live with his mother or with his daughter in a permanent arrangement, without concern. When he said this before Shmuel, the latter said: It is prohibited to be secluded with all those with whom relations are forbidden by the Torah, and even with an animal, as it is prohibited to engage in intercourse with an animal as well. We learned in the mishna: A man may be secluded with his mother, and with his daughter, and sleep alongside them with bodily contact, and this appears to be a conclusive refutation of the statement of Shmuel. The Gemara answers: Shmuel could have said to you: And according to your reasoning, how should one explain that which is taught in a baraita: With regard to his sister, and his mother-in-law, and all those with whom relations are forbidden, including his mother and daughter, one may be secluded with them only in the presence of witnesses, from which it can be inferred: In the presence of witnesses, yes; without the presence of witnesses, no. This baraita supports the opinion of Shmuel that one may not be secluded with his mother or sister. Rather, it is a dispute between tanna’im as to whether one may be secluded with his mother or sister. As it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Meir said: Be careful with me because of my daughter, i.e., make sure I am not left secluded with her. Similarly, Rabbi Tarfon said: Be careful with me because of my daughter-in-law. A certain student mocked him for being wary of the possibility of sinning with his daughter-in-law. Rabbi Abbahu said in the name of Rabbi Ḥanina ben Gamliel: Not many days passed until that student stumbled into sin with his mother-in-law. The Gemara stated that according to Shmuel it is prohibited for one to be alone even with an animal. The Gemara relates: Abaye removed the animals from the entire field he was in. Rav Sheshet transferred the animals to the other side of the fence. Rav Ḥanan from Neharde’a happened to come to Rav Kahana in Pum Nahara. He saw that he was sitting and studying, and an animal was standing before him. Rav Ḥanan said to him: Doesn’t the Master hold that one may not be secluded even with an animal? Rav Kahana said to him: It did not enter my mind that an animal was before me. Rava says: A man may be secluded with two sisters-in-law and with two rival wives, i.e., two women who share a husband; with a woman and her mother-in-law; and with a woman and her husband’s daughter. Since these women typically dislike each other, each fears that the other will publicize her sins, and they will be careful not to transgress. Similarly, a man may be secluded with a woman and a girl who knows the meaning of sexual intercourse, i.e., one who is old enough to understand the nature of intercourse, but is still young enough that she does not submit herself to intercourse, since she does not yet desire it. In such a situation, the woman is concerned that the child will reveal her behavior. § The mishna teaches that when one’s children have grown up, this one sleeps in his garment and that one sleeps in her garment, but they may share a bed. The Gemara asks: And how old must a child be to be considered grown up for the purposes of this halakha? Rav Adda bar Rav Azza says that Rav Asi says: A girl must reach the age of nine years and one day; a boy must reach the age of twelve years and one day. There are those who say: A girl must reach the age of twelve years and one day; a boy must reach the age of thirteen years and one day. And according to this and that, according to both opinions, the girl is considered a child until she has reached the stage of: “Your breasts were fashioned, and your hair was grown” (Ezekiel 16:7), meaning the onset of puberty. Rafram bar Pappa says that Rav Ḥisda says: They taught that a man may sleep in close proximity to his minor daughter only if she is not ashamed to stand naked before him, but if she is ashamed to stand naked before him, it is prohibited for him to sleep close to her, regardless of her age. What is the reason? It is that the inclination has a hold upon her, as otherwise she would not be ashamed. The Gemara relates: Rav Aḥa bar Abba arrived at the house of Rav Ḥisda, his son-in-law. He took his daughter’s daughter and placed her on his lap. Rav Ḥisda said to him: Doesn’t the Master think that she might already be betrothed? Rav Aḥa said to him: If that is true, you have transgressed the ruling of Rav, as Rav Yehuda says that Rav says, and some say it was said by Rabbi Elazar: It is prohibited for a man to betroth his daughter when she is a minor, until she grows up and says: I want to marry so-and-so, as otherwise she might reject the designated husband and ultimately sin by committing adultery. Rav Ḥisda replied: The Master has likewise transgressed the words of Shmuel. As Shmuel says: One may not make use of a woman, so how can you hold her on your lap? He said to him: I hold in accordance with another statement of Shmuel, as Shmuel says:
אָסוּר לְהִתְיַחֵד עִם עֶרְוָה מִן הָעֲרָיוֹת בֵּין זְקֵנָה בֵּין יַלְדָּה שֶׁדָּבָר זֶה גּוֹרֵם לְגַלּוֹת עֶרְוָה. חוּץ מֵהָאֵם עִם בְּנָהּ וְהָאָב עִם בִּתּוֹ.
לֹא נֶחְשְׁדוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל עַל מִשְׁכַּב זָכוּר וְעַל הַבְּהֵמָה. לְפִיכָךְ אֵין אָסוּר לְהִתְיַחֵד עִמָּהֶן. וְאִם נִתְרַחֵק אֲפִלּוּ מִיִּחוּד זָכור וּבְהֵמָה הֲרֵי זֶה מְשֻׁבָּח. וּגְדוֹלֵי הַחֲכָמִים הָיוּ מַרְחִיקִין הַבְּהֵמָה כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יִתְיַחֲדוּ עִמָּהּ.
(1) There is no prohibition in the whole of Scripture which the generality of the people experience greater difficulty in observing than the interdict of forbidden unions and illicit intercourse. The sages have declared that when Israel was given the commandments concerning forbidden unions, they wept and accepted this injunction with grumbling and wailing, as it is said, "weeping in their families (Numbers 11:10), i.e., weeping on account of the matter of family relations
שו"ת,הרב יוני לביא, דיני ייחוד, אתר ישיבה.
ייחוד עם בני משפחה
לאיש - האיסור שייך בכל הנשים, כולל קרובות משפחה (דודה, בת דודה), חוץ מהקרובות ביותר, שהן:
1. אם,סבתא, סבתא רבה 2. בת, נכדה, נינה 3. אחות
לאשה - האיסור שייך בכל הגברים, כולל קרובי משפחה חוץ מהקרובים ביותר שהם:
1. אב, סבא, סבא רבה. 2. בן, נכד ונין 3. אח.