## Kiddushin Daf 80a

###### Kiddushin 80a:1
[Kiddushin 80a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/80a:1)

לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא בְּקׇדְשֵׁי הַגְּבוּל, אֲבָל בְּיוּחֲסִין – לֹא. וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ בְּיוּחֲסִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.**


###### Kiddushin 80a:2
[Kiddushin 80a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/80a:2)

וְאַזְדָּא רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן לְטַעְמֵיהּ, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מַלְקִין עַל הַחֲזָקוֹת, סוֹקְלִין וְשׂוֹרְפִין עַל הַחֲזָקוֹת, וְאֵין שׂוֹרְפִין תְּרוּמָה עַל הַחֲזָקוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Kiddushin 80a:3
[Kiddushin 80a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/80a:3)

מַלְקִין עַל הַחֲזָקוֹת – כְּרַב יְהוּדָה. דְּאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: הוּחְזְקָה נִדָּה בִּשְׁכֵינוֹתֶיהָ, בַּעְלָהּ – לוֹקֶה עָלֶיהָ מִשּׁוּם נִדָּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Kiddushin 80a:4
[Kiddushin 80a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/80a:4)

סוֹקְלִין וְשׂוֹרְפִין עַל הַחֲזָקוֹת – כִּדְרַבָּה בַּר רַב הוּנָא. דְּאָמַר רַבָּה בַּר רַב הוּנָא: אִישׁ וְאִשָּׁה תִּינוֹק וְתִינוֹקֶת שֶׁהִגְדִּילוּ בְּתוֹךְ הַבַּיִת – נִסְקָלִין זֶה עַל זֶה, וְנִשְׂרָפִין זֶה עַל זֶה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Kiddushin 80a:5
[Kiddushin 80a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/80a:5)

אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן פַּזִּי, אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי מִשּׁוּם בַּר קַפָּרָא: מַעֲשֶׂה בְּאִשָּׁה שֶׁבָּאת לִירוּשָׁלַיִם וְתִינוֹק מוּרְכָּב לָהּ עַל כְּתֵיפָהּ, וְהִגְדִּילַתּוּ, וּבָא עָלֶיהָ, וֶהֱבִיאוּם לְבֵית דִּין וּסְקָלוּם. לֹא מִפְּנֵי שֶׁבְּנָהּ וַדַּאי, אֶלָּא מִפְּנֵי שֶׁכָּרוּךְ אַחֲרֶיהָ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Kiddushin 80a:6
[Kiddushin 80a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/80a:6)

וְאֵין שׂוֹרְפִין תְּרוּמָה עַל הַחֲזָקוֹת – דְּאָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ: שׂוֹרְפִין עַל הַחֲזָקוֹת, וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אוֹמֵר: אֵין שׂוֹרְפִין. וְאָזְדוּ לְטַעְמַיְיהוּ, דִּתְנַן: תִּינוֹק שֶׁנִּמְצָא בְּצַד הָעִיסָּה וּבָצֵק בְּיָדוֹ – רַבִּי מֵאִיר מְטַהֵר, וַחֲכָמִים מְטַמְּאִין, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁדַּרְכּוֹ שֶׁל תִּינוֹק לְטַפֵּחַ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Kiddushin 80a:7
[Kiddushin 80a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/80a:7)

וְהָוֵינַן בַּהּ: מַאי טַעְמֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר? קָסָבַר: רוֹב תִּינוֹקוֹת מְטַפְּחִין, וּמִיעוּט אֵין מְטַפְּחִין, וְעִיסָּה בְּחֶזְקַת טׇהֳרָה עוֹמֶדֶת, וּסְמוֹךְ מִיעוּטָא לַחֲזָקָה אִיתְּרַע לֵיהּ רוּבָּא. וְרַבָּנַן: מִיעוּטָא כְּמַאן דְּלֵיתֵיהּ דָּמֵי, רוּבָּא וַחֲזָקָה – רוּבָּא עֲדִיף.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.**


###### Kiddushin 80a:8
[Kiddushin 80a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/80a:8)

אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי אוֹשַׁעְיָא: זוֹ הִיא שֶׁשּׂוֹרְפִין עָלֶיהָ אֶת הַתְּרוּמָה. רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: אֵין זוֹ חֲזָקָה שֶׁשּׂוֹרְפִין עָלֶיהָ תְּרוּמָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Kiddushin 80a:9
[Kiddushin 80a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/80a:9)

אֶלָּא אֵיזוֹ חֲזָקָה לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן שֶׁשּׂוֹרְפִין עָלֶיהָ אֶת הַתְּרוּמָה? כְּדִתְנַן: עִיסָּה בְּתוֹךְ הַבַּיִת, וּשְׁרָצִים וּצְפַרְדְּעִים מִטַּפְּלִין שָׁם, וְנִמְצְאוּ חֲתִיכוֹת בָּעִיסָּה. אִם רוֹב שְׁרָצִים – טְמֵאָה. אִם רוֹב צְפַרְדְּעִים – טְהוֹרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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 creeping 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.**


###### Kiddushin 80a:10
[Kiddushin 80a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/80a:10)

תַּנְיָא כְּוָתֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: שְׁנֵי דְּבָרִים אֵין בָּהֶם דַּעַת לִישָּׁאֵל, וַעֲשָׂאוּם חֲכָמִים כְּמָה שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהֶם דַּעַת לִישָּׁאֵל: תִּינוֹק, וְעוֹד אַחֶרֶת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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*.


###### Kiddushin 80a:11
[Kiddushin 80a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/80a:11)

תִּינוֹק – הָא דַּאֲמַרַן. וְעוֹד אַחֶרֶת מַאי הִיא? עִיסָּה בְּתוֹךְ הַבַּיִת, וְתַרְנְגוֹלִים וּמַשְׁקִים טְמֵאִים שָׁם, וְנִמְצְאוּ

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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