נִקּוּרִים נִקּוּרִים בָּעִיסָּה – תּוֹלִין, לֹא אוֹכְלִין וְלֹא שׂוֹרְפִין.

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.

אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא בְּמַשְׁקִים לְבָנִים, אֲבָל בְּמַשְׁקִים אֲדוּמִּים – אִם אִיתָא דְּנָקִיר מֵידַע יְדִיעַ. וְדִילְמָא בְּלַעְתִּינְהוּ עִיסָּה?

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?

אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: דָּבָר זֶה שָׁמַע בְּרִיבִּי, וּפֵירוּשׁוֹ לֹא שָׁמַע: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא בְּמַשְׁקִים צְלוּלִים שֶׁבָּבוּאָה שֶׁל תִּינוֹק נִיכָּר בָּהּ, אֲבָל מַשְׁקִים עֲכוּרִים – לֹא.

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.

מתני׳ לֹא יִתְיַיחֵד אָדָם עִם שְׁתֵּי נָשִׁים, אֲבָל אִשָּׁה אַחַת מִתְיַיחֶדֶת עִם שְׁנֵי אֲנָשִׁים. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: אַף אִישׁ אֶחָד מִתְיַיחֵד עִם שְׁתֵּי נָשִׁים, בִּזְמַן שֶׁאִשְׁתּוֹ עִמּוֹ, וְיָשֵׁן עִמָּהֶם בְּפוּנְדָּקִי, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאִשְׁתּוֹ מְשַׁמַּרְתּוֹ. מִתְיַיחֵד אָדָם עִם אִמּוֹ וְעִם בִּתּוֹ וְיָשֵׁן עִמָּהֶם בְּקֵירוּב בָּשָׂר. וְאִם הִגְדִּילוּ – זוֹ יְשֵׁנָה בִּכְסוּתָהּ וְזֶה יָשֵׁן בִּכְסוּתוֹ.

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.

גמ׳ מַאי טַעֲמָא? תָּנָא דְּבֵי אֵלִיָּהוּ: הוֹאִיל וְנָשִׁים דַּעְתָּן קַלּוֹת עֲלֵיהֶן.

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.

מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי? אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: רֶמֶז לְיִחוּד מִן הַתּוֹרָה מִנַּיִן? שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״כִּי יְסִיתְךָ אָחִיךָ בֶן אִמֶּךָ״.

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).

וְכִי בֶּן אֵם מֵסִית, בֶּן אָב אֵינוֹ מֵסִית? אֶלָּא לוֹמַר לְךָ: בֵּן – מִתְיַיחֵד עִם אִמּוֹ, וְאָסוּר לְהִתְיַיחֵד עִם כָּל עֲרָיוֹת שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה.

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.

פְּשָׁטֵיהּ דִּקְרָא בְּמַאי כְּתִיב? אֲמַר אַבַּיֵי: לָא מִיבָּעֲיָא קָאָמַר; לָא מִיבָּעֲיָא בֶּן אָב דְּסָנֵי לֵיהּ, וְעָיֵיץ לֵיהּ עֵצוֹת רָעוֹת. אֶלָּא אֲפִילּוּ בֶּן אֵם, דְּלָא סָנֵי לֵיהּ – אֵימָא צָיְיתֵי לֵיהּ. קָא מַשְׁמַע לָן.

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.

נֵימָא מַתְנִיתִין דְּלָא כְּאַבָּא שָׁאוּל, דְּתַנְיָא: כָּל שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם יוֹצֵא בְּחֵיק וְנִקְבָּר בְּאִשָּׁה אַחַת וּשְׁנֵי אֲנָשִׁים, אֲבָל לֹא בְּאִישׁ אֶחָד וּשְׁתֵּי נָשִׁים. אַבָּא שָׁאוּל אוֹמֵר: אַף בְּאִישׁ אֶחָד וּשְׁתֵּי נָשִׁים.

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.

אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא אַבָּא שָׁאוּל, בִּשְׁעַת אֲנִינוּת תְּבִיר יִצְרֵיהּ.

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.

וְרַבָּנַן סָבְרִי לָהּ כְּרַבִּי יִצְחָק, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק: ״מַה יִּתְאוֹנֵן אָדָם חָי גֶּבֶר עַל חֲטָאָו״ – אֲפִילּוּ בִּשְׁעַת אֲנִינוּתוֹ שֶׁל אָדָם, יִצְרוֹ מִתְגַּבֵּר עָלָיו. וְאַבָּא שָׁאוּל: כִּי כְּתִיב הַהוּא – בְּמִתְרָעֵם עַל מִדּוֹתָיו כְּתִיב. וְהָכִי קָאָמַר: מַה יִּתְרָעֵם עַל מִדּוֹתָיו? וְכִי גָּבַר עַל חֲטָאָיו? דַּיּוֹ חַיִּים שֶׁנָּתַתִּי לוֹ.

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.

וְרַבָּנַן: כִּי הַהוּא מַעֲשֶׂה דְּהַהִיא אִיתְּתָא, דַּהֲוָה עוּבְדָא וְאַפִּיקְתֵּיהּ.

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.

״אֲבָל אִשָּׁה אַחַת״. אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא בִּכְשֵׁרִים, אֲבָל בִּפְרוּצִים – אֲפִילּוּ בֵּי עֲשָׂרָה נַמִי לָא. הֲוָה מַעֲשֶׂה וְהוֹצִיאוּהָ עֲשָׂרָה בְּמִטָּה. אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: תֵּדַע, דְּמִיחַבְּרִי בֵּי עֲשָׂרָה וְגָנְבֵי כְּשׁוּרָא וְלָא מִיכְסְפֵי מֵהֲדָדֵי.

§ 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.

נֵימָא מְסַיַּיע לֵיהּ: מוֹסְרִין לוֹ שְׁנֵי תַלְמִידֵי חֲכָמִים שֶׁמָּא יָבֹא עָלֶיהָ בַּדֶּרֶךְ. תַּלְמִידֵי חֲכָמִים – אִין, אִינְשֵׁי דְּעָלְמָא – לָא! שָׁאנֵי תַּלְמִידֵי חֲכָמִים, דְּיָדְעִי

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