Study Kiddushin folio 80A with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
Text Excerpt
לא שנו אלא בקדשי הגבול, אבל ביוחסין – לא. ורבי יוחנן אמר: אפילו ביוחסין.
A baraita states 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 R' Yoḥanan says: If the children cling to her they are considered hers in all regards, even with regard to lineage.
ואזדא רבי יוחנן לטעמיה, דאמר רבי חייא בר אבא אמר רבי יוחנן: מלקין על החזקות, סוקלין ושורפין על החזקות, ואין שורפין תרומה על החזקות.
The Talmud comments: And R' Yoḥanan follows his standard line of reasoning, as R' Ḥiyya bar Abba says that R' 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 had sex 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.