(Beraisa #1): The first testimony (in the Mishnah) is about seclusion; the latter testimony is about adultery.

Question: What duration is considered seclusion?

Answer: It is long enough for Tum'ah (adultery); for Bi'ah; for Ha'ara'ah (the first stage of Bi'ah);

R. Yishmael says, it is the time needed to go around a palm tree;

R. Eliezer says, it is the time needed to mix a drink;

R. Yehoshua says, it is the time needed to drink it;

Ben Azai says, it is the time needed to roast an egg;

R. Akiva says, it is the time needed to eat it;

R. Yehudah ben Beseira says, it is the time needed to eat three eggs, one after the other;

R. Eliezer ben Yirmeyah says, it is the time needed to tie two strands;

R. Chanan ben Pinchas says, it is the time needed to stick her hand into her mouth to remove a chip of wood;

Plimo says, it is the time needed to stick her hand into a basket to remove a loaf.

A hint (not a proof) for this is "for a prostitute, up to a loaf of bread."

Question: The Beraisa gives three descriptions (of the time for seclusion)- for Tum'ah; for Bi'ah; for Ha'ara'ah. Why are all these needed?

Answer: Had it said only for Tum'ah, one might have thought that it is for Tum'ah and consent. 'For Bi'ah' teaches that we do not need the time for consent.

Had it said only 'for Bi'ah', one might have thought for full Bi'ah. 'For Ha'ara'ah' teaches that this is not so.

Had it said only for Ha'ara'ah, one might have thought that it is for Ha'ara'ah and consent. 'For Tum'ah teaches that we do not need the time for consent.

R. Yishmael says, the time needed for Ha'ara'ah is...

Contradiction (Beraisa #2): "She was defiled" teaches that the duration of seclusion is the time needed for adultery, for Bi'ah, for Ha'ara'ah;

R. Eliezer says, this is the time needed for a palm tree to return (this will be explained);

R. Yehoshua says, it is the time needed to mix a drink;

Ben Azai says, it is the time needed to drink it;

R. Akiva says, it is the time needed to roast an egg;

R. Yehudah ben Beseira says, it is the time needed to eat it;

We are thinking that the time to go around a palm tree and the time for a palm tree to return are the same.

Contradiction #1: In Beraisa #1, R. Yishmael said the time to go around a palm tree, and R. Eliezer argued. In Beraisa #2, R. Eliezer said the time needed for a palm tree to return!

Answer (Abaye): 'The time to go around' means to walk around it. 'The time to return' means for a branch to return (after the wind swayed it).

Question (Rav Ashi): Is this the time to return to its initial position, or the time to come to rest?

This question is unresolved.

Contradiction #2: In Beraisa #1, R. Eliezer said the time to mix a drink. In Beraisa #2, he said the time needed for a palm tree to return!

Answer: These are the same.

Contradiction #3: In Beraisa #1, R. Yehoshua said the time to drink it. In Beraisa #2, he said the time to mix it!

Answer: (Both times) he meant the time to mix and drink it.

Question: Why didn't we answer that the time to mix it equals the time to drink it?

Answer: If so, in Beraisa #1 R. Yehoshua would be just like R. Eliezer.

Contradiction #4: In Beraisa #1, Ben Azai said the time to roast an egg. In Beraisa #2, he says the time to drink a cup!

Answer: These are the same.

Contradiction #5: In Beraisa #1, R. Akiva said the time to eat (an egg). Here, he says the time to roast it!

Answer: (Both times) he means the time to roast and eat it.

Question: Why didn't we answer that the time to roast it equals the time to eat it?

Answer: If so, in Beraisa #1 he would agree with Ben Azai.

Contradiction #6: In Beraisa #1, R. Yehudah ben Beseira said the time to eat three eggs. Here, he says the time to eat one!

Answer: He did not give his own opinion. Rather, he criticized R. Akiva's opinion:

R. Akiva said that it is the time to roast and eat an egg. R. Yehudah ben Beseira said, he should give the Shi'ur purely in terms of eating, namely, the time to eat three eggs. (It seems that this is another answer to Question p:1. If the time to roast an egg equaled the time to eat it, we could not explain R. Yehudah ben Beseira.)

(Beraisa - R. Eliezer ben Yirmeyah): It is the time to tie two strands.

Question (Rav Ashi): Is this when they are far apart or close together?

This question is unresolved.

(Beraisa - R. Chanan ben Pinchas): It is the time needed to stick her hand into her mouth to remove a chip of wood.

Question (Rav Ashi): Is this when it is stuck, or when it is not?

This question is unresolved.

(Beraisa - Plimo): It is the time needed to stick her hand into a basket to remove a loaf.

Questions (Rav Ashi): Is this when it is stuck, or not? It is a new basket, or an old one? Is the bread warm or cold? It is of wheat or of barley? It is soft or hard (kneading)?

These questions are unresolved.

(R. Yitzchak bar Yosef): Each Tana estimated the time he takes for Ha'ara'ah.

Objection: Ben Azai was never married!

Answer #1: He married, but soon separated.

Answer #2: He taught what he heard from his Rebbi.

Answer #3: "Hash-m reveals secrets to those who fear Him."

(Rav Avira): Anyone who eats bread without washing his hands is like one who has Bi'ah with a harlot - "for a harlot, up to a loaf of bread."

Objection (Rava): According to you, the verse should say 'for a loaf of bread, up to a harlot'!

(Rava): Rather, the verse teaches that anyone who has Bi'ah with a harlot will eventually beg for bread.

(Rav Zerika): Anyone who disgraces washing hands is uprooted from the world.

(R. Chiya bar Ashi): When washing before the meal, one must tilt his hands upwards; when washing after the meal, one must tilt his hands downwards.

Support (Beraisa): When washing before the meal, one must tilt his hands upwards, lest the water leave the palm and (the second pouring will not be Metaher the first water, and the first water will) return and be Metamei the hand.

(R. Avahu): Anyone who eats bread without drying his hands is like one who eats Tamei bread - "Hash-m said, so will Yisrael eat their bread, Tamei." (Rashi - this is despised. Ritva (Chulin 107a) - the water becomes Tamei, and it is Metamei the bread.)

Question: What do we learn from "a married woman will trap a Yekarah (heavy or precious) soul"?

Answer #1 (R. Chiya bar Aba): Anyone who is haughty will eventually stumble with (seduce) a married woman.

Objection #1 (Rava): If so, the verse should say "a high soul"!

Objection #2 (Rava): Also, it should say "the soul will trap her"!

Answer #2 (Rava): Anyone who has Bi'ah with a married woman, even if he learned Torah, which is "more precious than Peninim (pearls)", i.e. dearer than the Kohen Gadol, who enters Lifnai v'Lifnim (the innermost part of the Mikdash), she snares him to judgment in Gehinom.

(R. Yochanan, citing R. Shimon): If one has haughtiness, it is as if he serves idols.

It says "every haughty heart is an abomination to Hash-m", and "do not bring an abomination into your house."

(R. Yochanan himself): It is as if he denies Hash-m - "your heart will rise, and you will forget Hash-m."

(R. Chama bar Chanina): It is as if he had Bi'ah with all the Arayos (incestuous relationships). It says "every haughty heart is an abomination to Hash-m", just like "all of these abominations."

(Ula): It is as if he built a Bamah (private Mizbe'ach, when these are forbidden) - "Refrain from a man who esteems his soul. Ba'Meh (as what) is he considered?"

We read "ba'Meh" like Bamah.

Question: What do we learn from the end of the verse "hand to hand will not be cleansed"?

Answer #1 (Rav): Anyone who has Bi'ah with a married woman, even if he declared Hash-m to be sovereign over Heaven and earth, like Avraham did, he will not be exempt from punishment in Gehinom;

Avraham said "I raise my hand to Hash-m, the Supreme G-d, owner of Heaven and earth.

Objection (d'Vei R. Shila): If so, the verse should say "my hand" (like Avraham said)!

Answer #2 (d'Vei R. Shila): Even if he received Torah, "a law of fire from His right hand", like Moshe Rabeinu did, he will not be exempt from punishment in Gehinom.

Objection (R. Yochanan): If so, it should say "hand from hand"!