Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

September 18, 2023 | 讙壮 讘转砖专讬 转砖驻状讚

  • Masechet Kiddushin is sponsored by Julie and Martin Mendelsohn in honor of their two children who were recently married

  • This month's learning聽is sponsored by Leah Goldford in loving memory of聽her grandmothers, Tzipporah bat Yechezkiel, Rivka Yoda Bat聽Dovide Tzvi, Bracha Bayla bat Beryl, her father-in-law, Chaim Gershon ben Tzvi Aryeh, her mother, Devorah Rivkah bat Tuvia Hacohen, her cousins, Avrum Baer ben Mordechai, and Sharon bat Yaakov.

Kiddushin 36

This month’s learning is sponsored by Leah Goldford in loving memory of her grandmothers, Tzipporah bat Yechezkiel, Rivka Yoda Bat Dovide Tzvi, Bracha Bayla bat Beryl, whose yahrzeits are on Rosh Hashana. -Her father in-law, Chaim Gershon ben Tzvi Aryeh, whose yahrzeit is on Erev Yom Kippur, her mother, Devorah Rivkah bat Tuvia Hacohen, whose yahrzeit is on Hoshana Rabbah, her cousins, Avrum Baer ben Mordechai, whose yahrzeit is on Simchat Torah, and Sharon bat Yaakov, whose first yahrzeit is on 4 Tishrei. “All the myriad things they taught us serve as a testament to their memory and all these lessons are being passed on to the next generation giving meaning behind “May their memory be for a blessing”. They brought us up to fear Hashem, walk in the ways of the Torah and Mitzvot, have courage through Emunah in the face of unspeakable odds, reflect on our midot, laugh, and love each and every person. Yehi Zicram Baruch.

Today’s daf is sponsored by Debbie Baumgarten Kusnetz in honor of her daughter-in-law, Dvoranit Sussman Schwartz. “For all she does for her family and still makes time for learning the daf.”

There are three different explanations given to explain why Isi added a fourth case to the list of negative commandments that don’t apply to women – the prohibition of making oneself bald as a sign of mourning for a loved one. Why do each of them not accept the explanation of the others? There are several actions that are performed in the Temple relating to sacrifices that are traditionally performed by men and not women. The Mishna lists these actions and the Gemara explains from where in the Torah can we derive that each of these actions is meant to be performed only by men. There are two exceptions to the rule – the waving of the Sotah and the Nazirite meal offering. From where is this exception derived?

讗讞转 讛讬讗


are one prohibition.


讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 讚讗讬住讬 讚讙诪专 拽专讞讛 拽专讞讛 诪讘谞讬 讗讛专谉 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 谞砖讬诐 驻讟讜专讜转 讗祝 讻讗谉 谞砖讬诐 驻讟讜专讜转


Abaye said that this is the reason of Isi for exempting women from the prohibition against baldness: As he learns the prohibition against causing baldness in grief over someone who is dead through a verbal analogy from the prohibition against causing baldness stated with regard to the sons of Aaron. The verse states with regard to priests: 鈥淭hey shall not make baldness upon their head鈥 (Leviticus 21:5). Just as there, with regard to priests, women are exempt, as the expression 鈥渢he sons of Aaron鈥 serves to exclude the daughters of Aaron, so too here, women are exempt.


讜讗讬 住讘讬专讗 诇谉 讚讻讬 讻转讬讘 拽专讗 讘讻讜诇讬 注谞讬讬谞讗 讛讜讗 讚讻转讬讘 谞砖转讜拽 拽专讗 诪讬谞讬讛 讜转讬转讬 讘拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讜讗谞讗 讗诪讬谞讗 讜诪讛 讻讛谞讬诐 砖专讬讘讛 讘讛诐 讛讻转讜讘 诪爪讜转 讬转讬专讜转 讘谞讬 讗讛专谉 讜诇讗 讘谞讜转 讗讛专谉 讬砖专讗诇 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉


The Gemara asks: But if we maintain that when the Merciful One writes: 鈥淭he sons of Aaron鈥 (Leviticus 21:1), it is written with regard to the entire matter of that chapter, including the prohibition against causing baldness, let the verse be silent about this prohibition concerning all Jews. And this halakha could be derived through an a fortiori inference, as I could say the following: If in the case of priests, for whom the verse includes additional mitzvot, the prohibition against causing baldness applies only to the sons of Aaron and not the daughters of Aaron, is it not all the more so the case with regard to Israelites, who have fewer mitzvot, that only the men should be obligated and not the women?


讗讬 诇讗讜 讙讝专讛 砖讜讛 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讛驻住讬拽 讛注谞讬谉


The Gemara answers: Nevertheless, the verbal analogy is necessary. As, were it not for the verbal analogy I would say that the halakhot of ritual impurity concluded discussion of that matter, and the prohibition against causing baldness applies to all the descendants of Aaron, including women.


讛砖转讗 谞诪讬 谞讬诪讗 讛驻住讬拽 讛注谞讬谉 讜讗讬 诪砖讜诐 讙讝专讛 砖讜讛 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讻讚转谞讬讗 诇讗 讬拽专讞讜 讬讻讜诇 讗驻讬诇讜 拽专讞 讗专讘注 讜讞诪砖 拽专讞讜转 诇讗 讬讛讗 讞讬讬讘 讗诇讗 讗讞转 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 拽专讞讛 诇讞讬讬讘 注诇 讻诇 讗讞转 讜讗讞转


The Gemara asks: If so, now too, let us say that the halakhot of ritual impurity concluded discussion of that matter, and it is prohibited for the daughters of Aaron as well to cause baldness. And if you maintain that the reason the prohibition stated with regard to priests does not apply to women is due to the verbal analogy employing the term 鈥渕ake baldness,鈥 which serves to connect the halakha stated with regard to priests with the halakha stated with regard to all Jews, this verbal analogy is necessary for that which is taught in a baraita: The verse states: 鈥淭hey shall not make baldness [yikre岣 kor岣]鈥 (Leviticus 21:5). If the verse had stated only 鈥yikre岣,鈥 one might have thought that even if one made four or five patches of baldness he would be obligated for only one violation, as there is only one prohibition against making a bald spot. Therefore the verse also states 鈥kor岣,鈥 to render him liable for each and every one of the bald spots.


讘专讗砖诐 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇驻讬 砖谞讗诪专 诇讗 转转讙讚讚讜 讜诇讗 转砖讬诪讜 拽专讞讛 讘讬谉 注讬谞讬讻诐 诇诪转 讬讻讜诇 诇讗 讬讛讗 讞讬讬讘 讗诇讗 注诇 讘讬谉 讛注讬谞讬诐 诪谞讬谉 诇专讘讜转 讻诇 讛专讗砖 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讘专讗砖诐 诇讞讬讬讘 注诇 讛专讗砖 讻讘讬谉 讛注讬谞讬诐


The baraita continues: What is the meaning when the verse states: 鈥淯pon their head鈥 (Leviticus 21:5), with regard to the prohibition against a priest causing baldness? Because it is stated: 鈥淵ou shall not cut yourselves, nor make any baldness between your eyes for the dead鈥 (Deuteronomy 14:1), one might have thought that he is obligated only for removing the hair between the eyes. From where is it derived to include the entire head in this prohibition? When the verse states 鈥渦pon their head,鈥 it serves to render a priest liable for removing hair on his entire head like the spot between the eyes.


讜讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讻讛谞讬诐 砖专讬讘讛 讘讛诐 讛讻转讜讘 诪爪讜转 讬转讬专讜转 讬砖专讗诇 诪谞诇谉 谞讗诪专 讻讗谉 拽专讞讛 讜谞讗诪专 诇讛诇谉 拽专讞讛 诪讛 讻讗谉 讞讬讬讘 注诇 讻诇 拽专讞讛 讜拽专讞讛 讜讞讬讬讘 注诇 讛专讗砖 讻讘讬谉 讛注讬谞讬诐 讗祝 诇讛诇谉 讞讬讬讘 注诇 讻诇 拽专讞讛 讜拽专讞讛 讜讞讬讬讘 注诇 讛专讗砖 讻讘讬谉 讛注讬谞讬诐


The baraita continues: And I have derived only that this halakha applies to priests, for whom the verse includes additional mitzvot; from where do we derive that it applies to every Israelite, i.e., all Jews are liable for each and every bald spot and for the entire head? It is stated here, with regard to priests, 鈥渂aldness,鈥 and it is stated there, with regard to non-priests, 鈥渂aldness.鈥 Just as here, with regard to priests, one is obligated for each and every bald spot, and one is obligated for the entire head like the spot between the eyes, so too there, with regard to all Jews, one is obligated for each and every bald spot, and one is obligated for the entire head like the spot between the eyes.


讜诪讛 诇讛诇谉 注诇 诪转 讗祝 讻讗谉 注诇 诪转 讗诐 讻谉 谞讻转讜讘 拽专讗 拽专讞 诪讗讬 拽专讞讛 砖诪注转 诪讬谞讛 转专转讬


The baraita continues: And conversely, just as there, in the case of Israelites, it is referring specifically to causing baldness over someone who is dead, so too here, with regard to priests, it is prohibited to cause baldness only over someone who is dead, not in other circumstances. This baraita shows that the verbal analogy is required for the halakhot of bald spots. How, then, can it teach the exemption of women? The Gemara answers: If it is so that it may be used only for one purpose, let the verse be written merely bald [kera岣]. What is meant by the term 鈥渂aldness [kor岣]鈥? Conclude two conclusions from it, both the verbal analogy that exempts women and the halakha that each bald spot constitutes a separate violation.


专讘讗 讗诪专 讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 讚讗讬住讬 讚讬诇讬祝 讘讬谉 注讬谞讬讻诐 诪转驻讬诇讬谉 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 谞砖讬诐 驻讟讜专讜转 讗祝 讻讗谉 谞砖讬诐 驻讟讜专讜转 讜专讘讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 讗诪专 讻讗讘讬讬 拽专讞 拽专讞讛 诇讗 诪砖诪注 诇讬讛


Rava said that this is Isi鈥檚 reason, as he derives the verbal analogy of 鈥渂etween your eyes鈥 with regard to baldness from phylacteries, concerning which it says: 鈥淎nd they shall be for frontlets between your eyes鈥 (Deuteronomy 11:18): Just as there, with regard to phylacteries, women are exempt, so too here, in the case of baldness, women are exempt. The Gemara asks: And what is the reason that Rava did not state the same reason as Abaye? The Gemara answers: Rava does not learn anything from the distinction between kera岣 and kor岣, as he maintains that no halakha can be derived from this slight difference in language.


讜讗讘讬讬 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 讗诪专 讻专讘讗 讗诪专 诇讱 转驻讬诇讬谉 讙讜驻讬讬讛讜 诪讛讻讗 讙诪专 诇讛 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 诪拽讜诐 砖注讜砖讬诐 拽专讞讛 讘讙讜讘讛讛 砖诇 专讗砖 讗祝 讻讗谉 诪拽讜诐 讛谞讞讛 讘讙讜讘讛 讛专讗砖


The Gemara further asks: And what is the reason that Abaye did not state the same reason as Rava? The Gemara answers that Abaye could have said to you: Phylacteries themselves are derived from here, i.e., the meaning of the phrase 鈥渂etween your eyes鈥 stated with regard to phylacteries is understood from the case of baldness: Just as there, with regard to a bald spot, 鈥渂etween your eyes鈥 is referring to a place where baldness is formed, a spot where there is hair, which is on the upper part of the head but not actually between the eyes, so too, the place where phylacteries are donned is on the upper part of the head.


讜讘讬谉 诇讗讘讬讬 讜讘讬谉 诇专讘讗 讛讗讬 讘谞讬诐 讗转诐 诪讗讬 讚专砖讬 讘讬讛 讛讗讬 诪讬讘注讬 诇讻讚转谞讬讗 讘谞讬诐 讗转诐 诇讛壮 讗诇讛讬讻诐 讘讝诪谉 砖讗转诐 谞讜讛讙讬诐 诪谞讛讙 讘谞讬诐 讗转诐 拽专讜讬诐 讘谞讬诐 讗讬谉 讗转诐 谞讜讛讙讬诐 诪谞讛讙 讘谞讬诐 讗讬谉 讗转诐 拽专讜讬诐 讘谞讬诐 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛


The Gemara asks: And both Abaye and Rava, what do they derive from this verse: 鈥淵ou are the sons to the Lord your God鈥 (Deuteronomy 14:1)? According to the first explanation of Isi鈥檚 opinion, the exclusion of women is derived from this phrase, whereas they derive that halakha from a different source. The Gemara answers: This verse is necessary for that which is taught in a baraita: The verse: 鈥淵ou are the sons to the Lord your God,鈥 indicates that when you act like sons and cleave to the Holy One, Blessed be He, you are called sons, but when you do not act like sons you are not called sons. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.


专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讘讬谉 讻讱 讜讘讬谉 讻讱 讗转诐 拽专讜讬诐 讘谞讬诐 砖谞讗诪专 讘谞讬诐 住讻诇讬诐 讛诪讛 讜讗讜诪专 讘谞讬诐 诇讗 讗诪谉 讘诐 讜讗讜诪专 讝专注 诪专注讬诐 讘谞讬诐 诪砖讞讬转讬诐 讜讗讜诪专 讜讛讬讛 讘诪拽讜诐 讗砖专 讬讗诪专 诇讛诐 诇讗 注诪讬 讗转诐 讬讗诪专 诇讛诐 讘谞讬 讗诇 讞讬


And Rabbi Meir says: Either way you are still called sons, as it is stated: 鈥淭hey are foolish sons鈥 (Jeremiah 4:22). And it also states: 鈥淪ons in whom there is no faithfulness鈥 (Deuteronomy 32:20). And it states: 鈥淎 seed of evildoers, sons who deal corruptly鈥 (Isaiah 1:4). And it states: 鈥淎nd it shall come to pass that, instead of what was said to them: You are not My people, it shall be said to them: Sons of the living God鈥 (Hosea 2:1).


诪讗讬 讜讗讜诪专 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 住讻诇讬 讛讜讗 讚诪拽专讬 讘谞讬 讻讬 诇讬转 讘讛讜 讛讬诪谞讜转讬讬讛讜 诇讗 诪讬拽专讜 讘谞讬 转讗 砖诪注 讜讗讜诪专 讘谞讬诐 诇讗 讗诪谉 讘诐


The Gemara asks: Why is it necessary to cite these additional proofs introduced by the phrase: And it states? All these verses apparently make the same point. The Gemara explains why all the quotes are necessary. And if you would say: Granted, when they are foolish they are still called sons, as the verse states: 鈥淔oolish sons,鈥 but when they do not have faithfulness they are not called sons; therefore, come and hear another verse. And that verse states: 鈥淪ons in whom there is no faithfulness.鈥


讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讻讬 诇讬转 讘讛讜 讛讬诪谞讜转讗 讛讜讗 讚诪讬拽专讜 讘谞讬诐 讻讬 驻诇讞讜 诇注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 诇讗 诪讬拽专讜 讘谞讬诐 转讗 砖诪注 讜讗讜诪专 讝专注 诪专注讬诐 讘谞讬诐 诪砖讞讬转讬诐 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讘谞讬诐 诪砖讞讬转讬诐 讛讜讗 讚诪讬拽专讜 讘谞讬 诪注诇讬讬讗 诇讗 诪讬拽专讜 转讗 砖诪注 讜讗讜诪专 讜讛讬讛 讘诪拽讜诐 讗砖专 讬讗诪专 诇讛诐 诇讗 注诪讬 讗转诐 讬讗诪专 诇讛诐 讘谞讬 讗诇 讞讬


And if you would say: It is when they do not have faithfulness that they are called sons, as stated, but when they worship idols they are not called sons anymore; therefore, come and hear: And the verse states: 鈥淎 seed of evildoers, sons who deal corruptly,鈥 which alludes to the corruption of idol worship. And if you would say that although they are called 鈥渟ons who deal corruptly,鈥 they are no longer called full-fledged sons of God once they have sinned, come and hear: And the verse states: 鈥淎nd it shall come to pass that, instead of what was said to them: You are not My people, it shall be said to them: Sons of the living God.鈥 This verse indicates that when the Jews repent they are again called full-fledged sons of God.


诪转谞讬壮 讛住诪讬讻讜转 讜讛转谞讜驻讜转 讜讛讛讙砖讜转 讜讛拽诪讬爪讜转 讜讛拽讟专讜转 讜讛诪诇讬拽讜转 讜讛拽讘诇讜转 讜讛讝讗讜转 谞讜讛讙讬诐 讘讗谞砖讬诐 讜诇讗 讘谞砖讬诐 讞讜抓 诪诪谞讞转 住讜讟讛 讜谞讝讬专讛 砖讛谉 诪谞讬驻讜转


MISHNA: With regard to the placing of hands on the head of an offering, and the waving of certain offerings, and the bringing near of meal-offerings to the corner of the altar, and the removal of a handful from meal-offerings, and the burning of sacrificial parts on the altar, and the pinching of bird-offerings, and the collecting of blood of offerings in a vessel, and the sprinkling of blood, these apply to men and not to women. All these mitzvot apply specifically to men and not to women, except for the meal-offering of a sota, and the meal-offering of a nazirite woman, which these women wave.


讙诪壮 住诪讬讻讜转 讚讻转讬讘 讚讘专 讗诇 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 讜住诪讱 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 住讜诪讻讬诐 讜讗讬谉 讘谞讜转 讬砖专讗诇 住讜诪讻讜转


GEMARA: From where is it derived that placing of hands on the head of an offering applies only to men? As it is written: 鈥淪peak to the sons of Israel鈥nd he shall place his hand鈥 (Leviticus 1:2鈥4), which indicates that the sons of Israel place hands on offerings, but the daughters of Israel do not place hands.


转谞讜驻讜转 讚讘专 讗诇 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 讜讛谞讬祝 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 诪谞讬驻讬谉 讜讗讬谉 讘谞讜转 讬砖专讗诇 诪谞讬驻讜转


The Gemara explains that the halakha of waving is derived from the following verse: 鈥淪peak to the sons of Israel鈥nd he shall wave鈥 (see Leviticus 7:29鈥30), which likewise teaches that the sons of Israel wave, but the daughters of Israel do not wave.


讛讙砖讜转 讚讻转讬讘 讜讝讗转 转讜专转 讛诪谞讞讛 讛拽专讘 讗转讛 讘谞讬 讗讛专谉 讘谞讬 讗讛专谉 讜诇讗 讘谞讜转 讗讛专谉


搂 With regard to bringing near, this is as it is written: 鈥淎nd this is the law of the meal-offering: The sons of Aaron shall bring it near鈥 (Leviticus 6:7). This teaches that the sons of Aaron bring the meal-offering near, but not the daughters of Aaron.


拽诪讬爪讜转 讚讻转讬讘 讜讛讘讬讗讛 讗诇 讘谞讬 讗讛专谉 讜拽诪抓 讘谞讬 讗讛专谉 讜诇讗 讘谞讜转 讗讛专谉


With regard to the removal of a handful, this is as it is written: 鈥淎nd he shall bring it to the sons of Aaron, the priests, and he shall remove a handful鈥 (Leviticus 2:2). This teaches that the sons of Aaron take a handful, but not the daughters of Aaron.


讛拽讟专讜转 讚讻转讬讘 讜讛拽讟讬专讜 讗转讜 讘谞讬 讗讛专谉 讘谞讬 讗讛专谉 讜诇讗 讘谞讜转 讗讛专谉


With regard to the burning of sacrificial parts, this is as it is written: 鈥淎nd the sons of Aaron shall burn it鈥 (Leviticus 3:5). This teaches that it is the sons of Aaron who burn the parts, but not the daughters of Aaron.


讛诪诇讬拽讜转 讚讻转讬讘 讜诪诇拽 讜讛拽讟讬专 讗讬转拽砖 诪诇讬拽讛 诇讛拽讟专讛


With regard to pinching, this is as it is written: 鈥淎nd he shall pinch鈥nd he shall burn鈥 (Leviticus 1:15). The verse juxtaposes killing to burning, and just as the burning of an offering must be performed by men, so too pinching may be performed only by men.


讛拽讘诇讜转 讚讻转讬讘 讜讛拽专讬讘讜 讘谞讬 讗讛专谉 讜讗诪专 诪专


With regard to receiving, this is as it is written: 鈥淎nd the sons of Aaron shall present the blood鈥 (Leviticus 1:5). And the Master said in explanation of this verse:


讜讛拽专讬讘讜 讝讜 拽讘诇转 讛讚诐:


鈥淎nd the sons of Aaron shall present,鈥 this is collecting the blood.


讜讛讝讗讜转: 讛讝讗讛 讚讛讬讻讗 讗讬 讚驻专讛 讗诇注讝专 讻转讜讘 讘讛 讗讬 讚驻谞讬诐 讛讻讛谉 讛诪砖讬讞 讻转讜讘 讘讛 讗诇讗 讛讝讗讛 讚讘谉 注讜祝


The Gemara discusses the mishna鈥檚 ruling that women do not perform sprinkling: To which sprinkling is this referring? If this is the sprinkling of the ashes of the red heifer, 鈥淓lazar鈥 is written with regard to that action (Numbers 19:4), i.e., this sprinkling is performed by the deputy High Priest. If even other priests cannot perform it, certainly women cannot. If this is referring to the sprinkling performed inside the Holy of Holies, the phrase: 鈥淭he anointed priest鈥 (Leviticus 4:16), is written with regard to that rite, and consequently there is no question that women are ineligible. Rather, it is referring to sprinkling the blood of a bird-offering.


讚讗转讬讗 讘拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 诪讘谉 爪讗谉 讜诪讛 讘谉 爪讗谉 砖诇讗 拽讘注 诇讜 讻讛谉 诇砖讞讬讟转讜 拽讘注 诇讜 讻讛谉 诇讛讝讗转讜 讘谉 注讜祝 砖拽讘注 诇讜 讻讛谉 诇诪诇讬拽转讜 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖讬拽讘注 诇讜 诇讛讝讗转讜


The Gemara explains that this is derived through an a fortiori inference from a sheep offering: If with regard to a sheep offering, concerning which the Torah did not establish a priest for its slaughter, since it may be slaughtered by anybody, the Torah nevertheless established a priest for its sprinkling, as the verse states: 鈥淎nd the sons of Aaron, the priests, shall sprinkle its blood鈥 (Leviticus 1:11), is it not logical that with regard to a bird-offering, concerning which the Torah established a priest for its pinching, an act parallel to slaughtering a sheep, the Torah likewise established a priest for its sprinkling? This proves that the sprinkling of the blood of a bird-offering can be performed only by priests, not by women.


讞讜抓 诪诪谞讞转 住讜讟讛 讜谞讝讬专讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诇专讘讬 讬讗砖讬讛 讚讚专讬讛 诇讗 转讬转讬讘 讗讻专注讱 注讚 讚讗诪专转 诇讬 诇讛讗 砖诪注转转讗 诪谞讬谉 诇诪谞讞转 住讜讟讛 砖讟注讜谞讛 转谞讜驻讛 诪谞诇谉 讘讙讜驻讛 讻转讬讘 讜讛谞讬祝 讗转 讛诪谞讞讛 讗诇讗 转谞讜驻讛 讘讘注诇讬诐 诪谞诇谉


搂 The mishna teaches that these mitzvot apply specifically to men but not to women, except for the meal-offering of a sota and a nazirite woman, which these women wave. Rabbi Elazar said to Rabbi Yoshiya of his generation, i.e., the amora who was his contemporary, not the tanna with the same name who lived earlier: Do not sit down until you explain this statement to me; from where is it derived that the meal-offering of a sota requires waving? The Gemara expresses surprise: What is the meaning of the question: From where do we derive it? It is written in the chapter dealing with a sota itself: 鈥淎nd he shall wave the meal-offering鈥 (Numbers 5:25). Rather, the question is as follows: From where do we derive that the waving is performed by the owners? Perhaps only the priest waves it?


讗转讬讗 讬讚 讬讚 诪砖诇诪讬诐 讻转讬讘 讛讻讗 讜诇拽讞 讛讻讛谉 诪讬讚 讛讗砖讛 讜讻转讬讘 讛转诐 讬讚讬讜 转讘讬讗谞讛


Rabbi Yoshiya responded: This halakha is derived through the verbal analogy of the term 鈥渉and鈥 stated with regard to a sota from the term 鈥渉and鈥 stated with regard to a peace-offering. It is written here, with regard to the meal-offering of a sota: 鈥淎nd the priest shall take the meal-offering of jealousy from the woman鈥檚 hand and he shall wave the meal-offering鈥 (Numbers 5:25), and it is written there: 鈥淗is own hands shall bring the offerings of the Lord made by fire; the fat with the breast shall he bring, that the breast may be waved before the Lord鈥 (Leviticus 7:30).


诪讛 讻讗谉 讻讛谉 讗祝 诇讛诇谉 讻讛谉 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 讘注诇讬诐 讗祝 讻讗谉 讘注诇讬诐 讛讗 讻讬爪讚 讻讛谉 诪讻谞讬住 讬讚讜 转讞转 讬讚 讘注诇讬诐 讜诪谞讬祝


Just as here, with regard to a sota, a priest performs the waving, so too there, with regard to a peace-offering, a priest performs the waving. And just as there, with regard to a peace-offering, the owner performs the waving, as indicated by the verse, so too here, with regard to a sota, the owner performs the waving. How so? How can both the priest and the owner perform the waving? The owner places his hands beneath the peace-offering, and the priest places his hand under the hand of the owner and waves it together with him.


讗砖讻讞谉 住讜讟讛 谞讝讬专讛 诪谞诇谉 讗转讬讗 讻祝 讻祝 诪住讜讟讛


The Gemara asks: We found a source for the meal-offering of a sota; from where do we derive that a nazirite woman also waves her meal-offering? The Gemara answers: It is derived through a verbal analogy of the term 鈥減alm鈥 stated with regard to naziriteship from the term 鈥減alm鈥 stated with regard to a sota. The verse concerning naziriteship states: 鈥淎nd he shall place them upon the palms of the nazirite鈥 (Numbers 6:19), and the verse concerning a sota states: 鈥淎nd he shall place it on her palms鈥 (Numbers 5:18). Just as a sota waves her meal-offering, so too, a nazirite woman waves hers.


诪转谞讬壮 讻诇 诪爪讜讛 砖讛讬讗 转诇讜讬讛 讘讗专抓 讗讬谞讛 谞讜讛讙转 讗诇讗 讘讗专抓 讜砖讗讬谞讛 转诇讜讬讛 讘讗专抓 谞讜讛讙转 讘讬谉 讘讗专抓 讘讬谉 讘讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓


MISHNA: Any mitzva that is dependent on the land [aretz] applies only in Eretz Yisrael, and any mitzva that is not dependent on the land applies both in Eretz Yisrael and outside of Eretz Yisrael.

  • Masechet Kiddushin is sponsored by Julie and Martin Mendelsohn in honor of their two children who were recently married

  • This month's learning聽is sponsored by Leah Goldford in loving memory of聽her grandmothers, Tzipporah bat Yechezkiel, Rivka Yoda Bat聽Dovide Tzvi, Bracha Bayla bat Beryl, her father-in-law, Chaim Gershon ben Tzvi Aryeh, her mother, Devorah Rivkah bat Tuvia Hacohen, her cousins, Avrum Baer ben Mordechai, and Sharon bat Yaakov.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Kiddusin: 32 – 38 – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

This week we will continue learning about the commandment to honor and fear one鈥檚 parents. We will also learn that...
ramban seal

Lover of Zion

If you keep kosher and live in the Diaspora, especially in an area without many observant Jews, coming to Israel...
talking talmud_square

Kiddushin 36: Children of God

Rava and Abaye on Isi's position regarding women not making bald spots on their heads. Plus, the Jewish people as...

Kiddushin 36

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Kiddushin 36

讗讞转 讛讬讗


are one prohibition.


讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 讚讗讬住讬 讚讙诪专 拽专讞讛 拽专讞讛 诪讘谞讬 讗讛专谉 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 谞砖讬诐 驻讟讜专讜转 讗祝 讻讗谉 谞砖讬诐 驻讟讜专讜转


Abaye said that this is the reason of Isi for exempting women from the prohibition against baldness: As he learns the prohibition against causing baldness in grief over someone who is dead through a verbal analogy from the prohibition against causing baldness stated with regard to the sons of Aaron. The verse states with regard to priests: 鈥淭hey shall not make baldness upon their head鈥 (Leviticus 21:5). Just as there, with regard to priests, women are exempt, as the expression 鈥渢he sons of Aaron鈥 serves to exclude the daughters of Aaron, so too here, women are exempt.


讜讗讬 住讘讬专讗 诇谉 讚讻讬 讻转讬讘 拽专讗 讘讻讜诇讬 注谞讬讬谞讗 讛讜讗 讚讻转讬讘 谞砖转讜拽 拽专讗 诪讬谞讬讛 讜转讬转讬 讘拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讜讗谞讗 讗诪讬谞讗 讜诪讛 讻讛谞讬诐 砖专讬讘讛 讘讛诐 讛讻转讜讘 诪爪讜转 讬转讬专讜转 讘谞讬 讗讛专谉 讜诇讗 讘谞讜转 讗讛专谉 讬砖专讗诇 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉


The Gemara asks: But if we maintain that when the Merciful One writes: 鈥淭he sons of Aaron鈥 (Leviticus 21:1), it is written with regard to the entire matter of that chapter, including the prohibition against causing baldness, let the verse be silent about this prohibition concerning all Jews. And this halakha could be derived through an a fortiori inference, as I could say the following: If in the case of priests, for whom the verse includes additional mitzvot, the prohibition against causing baldness applies only to the sons of Aaron and not the daughters of Aaron, is it not all the more so the case with regard to Israelites, who have fewer mitzvot, that only the men should be obligated and not the women?


讗讬 诇讗讜 讙讝专讛 砖讜讛 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讛驻住讬拽 讛注谞讬谉


The Gemara answers: Nevertheless, the verbal analogy is necessary. As, were it not for the verbal analogy I would say that the halakhot of ritual impurity concluded discussion of that matter, and the prohibition against causing baldness applies to all the descendants of Aaron, including women.


讛砖转讗 谞诪讬 谞讬诪讗 讛驻住讬拽 讛注谞讬谉 讜讗讬 诪砖讜诐 讙讝专讛 砖讜讛 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讻讚转谞讬讗 诇讗 讬拽专讞讜 讬讻讜诇 讗驻讬诇讜 拽专讞 讗专讘注 讜讞诪砖 拽专讞讜转 诇讗 讬讛讗 讞讬讬讘 讗诇讗 讗讞转 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 拽专讞讛 诇讞讬讬讘 注诇 讻诇 讗讞转 讜讗讞转


The Gemara asks: If so, now too, let us say that the halakhot of ritual impurity concluded discussion of that matter, and it is prohibited for the daughters of Aaron as well to cause baldness. And if you maintain that the reason the prohibition stated with regard to priests does not apply to women is due to the verbal analogy employing the term 鈥渕ake baldness,鈥 which serves to connect the halakha stated with regard to priests with the halakha stated with regard to all Jews, this verbal analogy is necessary for that which is taught in a baraita: The verse states: 鈥淭hey shall not make baldness [yikre岣 kor岣]鈥 (Leviticus 21:5). If the verse had stated only 鈥yikre岣,鈥 one might have thought that even if one made four or five patches of baldness he would be obligated for only one violation, as there is only one prohibition against making a bald spot. Therefore the verse also states 鈥kor岣,鈥 to render him liable for each and every one of the bald spots.


讘专讗砖诐 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇驻讬 砖谞讗诪专 诇讗 转转讙讚讚讜 讜诇讗 转砖讬诪讜 拽专讞讛 讘讬谉 注讬谞讬讻诐 诇诪转 讬讻讜诇 诇讗 讬讛讗 讞讬讬讘 讗诇讗 注诇 讘讬谉 讛注讬谞讬诐 诪谞讬谉 诇专讘讜转 讻诇 讛专讗砖 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讘专讗砖诐 诇讞讬讬讘 注诇 讛专讗砖 讻讘讬谉 讛注讬谞讬诐


The baraita continues: What is the meaning when the verse states: 鈥淯pon their head鈥 (Leviticus 21:5), with regard to the prohibition against a priest causing baldness? Because it is stated: 鈥淵ou shall not cut yourselves, nor make any baldness between your eyes for the dead鈥 (Deuteronomy 14:1), one might have thought that he is obligated only for removing the hair between the eyes. From where is it derived to include the entire head in this prohibition? When the verse states 鈥渦pon their head,鈥 it serves to render a priest liable for removing hair on his entire head like the spot between the eyes.


讜讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讻讛谞讬诐 砖专讬讘讛 讘讛诐 讛讻转讜讘 诪爪讜转 讬转讬专讜转 讬砖专讗诇 诪谞诇谉 谞讗诪专 讻讗谉 拽专讞讛 讜谞讗诪专 诇讛诇谉 拽专讞讛 诪讛 讻讗谉 讞讬讬讘 注诇 讻诇 拽专讞讛 讜拽专讞讛 讜讞讬讬讘 注诇 讛专讗砖 讻讘讬谉 讛注讬谞讬诐 讗祝 诇讛诇谉 讞讬讬讘 注诇 讻诇 拽专讞讛 讜拽专讞讛 讜讞讬讬讘 注诇 讛专讗砖 讻讘讬谉 讛注讬谞讬诐


The baraita continues: And I have derived only that this halakha applies to priests, for whom the verse includes additional mitzvot; from where do we derive that it applies to every Israelite, i.e., all Jews are liable for each and every bald spot and for the entire head? It is stated here, with regard to priests, 鈥渂aldness,鈥 and it is stated there, with regard to non-priests, 鈥渂aldness.鈥 Just as here, with regard to priests, one is obligated for each and every bald spot, and one is obligated for the entire head like the spot between the eyes, so too there, with regard to all Jews, one is obligated for each and every bald spot, and one is obligated for the entire head like the spot between the eyes.


讜诪讛 诇讛诇谉 注诇 诪转 讗祝 讻讗谉 注诇 诪转 讗诐 讻谉 谞讻转讜讘 拽专讗 拽专讞 诪讗讬 拽专讞讛 砖诪注转 诪讬谞讛 转专转讬


The baraita continues: And conversely, just as there, in the case of Israelites, it is referring specifically to causing baldness over someone who is dead, so too here, with regard to priests, it is prohibited to cause baldness only over someone who is dead, not in other circumstances. This baraita shows that the verbal analogy is required for the halakhot of bald spots. How, then, can it teach the exemption of women? The Gemara answers: If it is so that it may be used only for one purpose, let the verse be written merely bald [kera岣]. What is meant by the term 鈥渂aldness [kor岣]鈥? Conclude two conclusions from it, both the verbal analogy that exempts women and the halakha that each bald spot constitutes a separate violation.


专讘讗 讗诪专 讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 讚讗讬住讬 讚讬诇讬祝 讘讬谉 注讬谞讬讻诐 诪转驻讬诇讬谉 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 谞砖讬诐 驻讟讜专讜转 讗祝 讻讗谉 谞砖讬诐 驻讟讜专讜转 讜专讘讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 讗诪专 讻讗讘讬讬 拽专讞 拽专讞讛 诇讗 诪砖诪注 诇讬讛


Rava said that this is Isi鈥檚 reason, as he derives the verbal analogy of 鈥渂etween your eyes鈥 with regard to baldness from phylacteries, concerning which it says: 鈥淎nd they shall be for frontlets between your eyes鈥 (Deuteronomy 11:18): Just as there, with regard to phylacteries, women are exempt, so too here, in the case of baldness, women are exempt. The Gemara asks: And what is the reason that Rava did not state the same reason as Abaye? The Gemara answers: Rava does not learn anything from the distinction between kera岣 and kor岣, as he maintains that no halakha can be derived from this slight difference in language.


讜讗讘讬讬 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 讗诪专 讻专讘讗 讗诪专 诇讱 转驻讬诇讬谉 讙讜驻讬讬讛讜 诪讛讻讗 讙诪专 诇讛 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 诪拽讜诐 砖注讜砖讬诐 拽专讞讛 讘讙讜讘讛讛 砖诇 专讗砖 讗祝 讻讗谉 诪拽讜诐 讛谞讞讛 讘讙讜讘讛 讛专讗砖


The Gemara further asks: And what is the reason that Abaye did not state the same reason as Rava? The Gemara answers that Abaye could have said to you: Phylacteries themselves are derived from here, i.e., the meaning of the phrase 鈥渂etween your eyes鈥 stated with regard to phylacteries is understood from the case of baldness: Just as there, with regard to a bald spot, 鈥渂etween your eyes鈥 is referring to a place where baldness is formed, a spot where there is hair, which is on the upper part of the head but not actually between the eyes, so too, the place where phylacteries are donned is on the upper part of the head.


讜讘讬谉 诇讗讘讬讬 讜讘讬谉 诇专讘讗 讛讗讬 讘谞讬诐 讗转诐 诪讗讬 讚专砖讬 讘讬讛 讛讗讬 诪讬讘注讬 诇讻讚转谞讬讗 讘谞讬诐 讗转诐 诇讛壮 讗诇讛讬讻诐 讘讝诪谉 砖讗转诐 谞讜讛讙讬诐 诪谞讛讙 讘谞讬诐 讗转诐 拽专讜讬诐 讘谞讬诐 讗讬谉 讗转诐 谞讜讛讙讬诐 诪谞讛讙 讘谞讬诐 讗讬谉 讗转诐 拽专讜讬诐 讘谞讬诐 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛


The Gemara asks: And both Abaye and Rava, what do they derive from this verse: 鈥淵ou are the sons to the Lord your God鈥 (Deuteronomy 14:1)? According to the first explanation of Isi鈥檚 opinion, the exclusion of women is derived from this phrase, whereas they derive that halakha from a different source. The Gemara answers: This verse is necessary for that which is taught in a baraita: The verse: 鈥淵ou are the sons to the Lord your God,鈥 indicates that when you act like sons and cleave to the Holy One, Blessed be He, you are called sons, but when you do not act like sons you are not called sons. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.


专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讘讬谉 讻讱 讜讘讬谉 讻讱 讗转诐 拽专讜讬诐 讘谞讬诐 砖谞讗诪专 讘谞讬诐 住讻诇讬诐 讛诪讛 讜讗讜诪专 讘谞讬诐 诇讗 讗诪谉 讘诐 讜讗讜诪专 讝专注 诪专注讬诐 讘谞讬诐 诪砖讞讬转讬诐 讜讗讜诪专 讜讛讬讛 讘诪拽讜诐 讗砖专 讬讗诪专 诇讛诐 诇讗 注诪讬 讗转诐 讬讗诪专 诇讛诐 讘谞讬 讗诇 讞讬


And Rabbi Meir says: Either way you are still called sons, as it is stated: 鈥淭hey are foolish sons鈥 (Jeremiah 4:22). And it also states: 鈥淪ons in whom there is no faithfulness鈥 (Deuteronomy 32:20). And it states: 鈥淎 seed of evildoers, sons who deal corruptly鈥 (Isaiah 1:4). And it states: 鈥淎nd it shall come to pass that, instead of what was said to them: You are not My people, it shall be said to them: Sons of the living God鈥 (Hosea 2:1).


诪讗讬 讜讗讜诪专 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 住讻诇讬 讛讜讗 讚诪拽专讬 讘谞讬 讻讬 诇讬转 讘讛讜 讛讬诪谞讜转讬讬讛讜 诇讗 诪讬拽专讜 讘谞讬 转讗 砖诪注 讜讗讜诪专 讘谞讬诐 诇讗 讗诪谉 讘诐


The Gemara asks: Why is it necessary to cite these additional proofs introduced by the phrase: And it states? All these verses apparently make the same point. The Gemara explains why all the quotes are necessary. And if you would say: Granted, when they are foolish they are still called sons, as the verse states: 鈥淔oolish sons,鈥 but when they do not have faithfulness they are not called sons; therefore, come and hear another verse. And that verse states: 鈥淪ons in whom there is no faithfulness.鈥


讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讻讬 诇讬转 讘讛讜 讛讬诪谞讜转讗 讛讜讗 讚诪讬拽专讜 讘谞讬诐 讻讬 驻诇讞讜 诇注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 诇讗 诪讬拽专讜 讘谞讬诐 转讗 砖诪注 讜讗讜诪专 讝专注 诪专注讬诐 讘谞讬诐 诪砖讞讬转讬诐 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讘谞讬诐 诪砖讞讬转讬诐 讛讜讗 讚诪讬拽专讜 讘谞讬 诪注诇讬讬讗 诇讗 诪讬拽专讜 转讗 砖诪注 讜讗讜诪专 讜讛讬讛 讘诪拽讜诐 讗砖专 讬讗诪专 诇讛诐 诇讗 注诪讬 讗转诐 讬讗诪专 诇讛诐 讘谞讬 讗诇 讞讬


And if you would say: It is when they do not have faithfulness that they are called sons, as stated, but when they worship idols they are not called sons anymore; therefore, come and hear: And the verse states: 鈥淎 seed of evildoers, sons who deal corruptly,鈥 which alludes to the corruption of idol worship. And if you would say that although they are called 鈥渟ons who deal corruptly,鈥 they are no longer called full-fledged sons of God once they have sinned, come and hear: And the verse states: 鈥淎nd it shall come to pass that, instead of what was said to them: You are not My people, it shall be said to them: Sons of the living God.鈥 This verse indicates that when the Jews repent they are again called full-fledged sons of God.


诪转谞讬壮 讛住诪讬讻讜转 讜讛转谞讜驻讜转 讜讛讛讙砖讜转 讜讛拽诪讬爪讜转 讜讛拽讟专讜转 讜讛诪诇讬拽讜转 讜讛拽讘诇讜转 讜讛讝讗讜转 谞讜讛讙讬诐 讘讗谞砖讬诐 讜诇讗 讘谞砖讬诐 讞讜抓 诪诪谞讞转 住讜讟讛 讜谞讝讬专讛 砖讛谉 诪谞讬驻讜转


MISHNA: With regard to the placing of hands on the head of an offering, and the waving of certain offerings, and the bringing near of meal-offerings to the corner of the altar, and the removal of a handful from meal-offerings, and the burning of sacrificial parts on the altar, and the pinching of bird-offerings, and the collecting of blood of offerings in a vessel, and the sprinkling of blood, these apply to men and not to women. All these mitzvot apply specifically to men and not to women, except for the meal-offering of a sota, and the meal-offering of a nazirite woman, which these women wave.


讙诪壮 住诪讬讻讜转 讚讻转讬讘 讚讘专 讗诇 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 讜住诪讱 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 住讜诪讻讬诐 讜讗讬谉 讘谞讜转 讬砖专讗诇 住讜诪讻讜转


GEMARA: From where is it derived that placing of hands on the head of an offering applies only to men? As it is written: 鈥淪peak to the sons of Israel鈥nd he shall place his hand鈥 (Leviticus 1:2鈥4), which indicates that the sons of Israel place hands on offerings, but the daughters of Israel do not place hands.


转谞讜驻讜转 讚讘专 讗诇 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 讜讛谞讬祝 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 诪谞讬驻讬谉 讜讗讬谉 讘谞讜转 讬砖专讗诇 诪谞讬驻讜转


The Gemara explains that the halakha of waving is derived from the following verse: 鈥淪peak to the sons of Israel鈥nd he shall wave鈥 (see Leviticus 7:29鈥30), which likewise teaches that the sons of Israel wave, but the daughters of Israel do not wave.


讛讙砖讜转 讚讻转讬讘 讜讝讗转 转讜专转 讛诪谞讞讛 讛拽专讘 讗转讛 讘谞讬 讗讛专谉 讘谞讬 讗讛专谉 讜诇讗 讘谞讜转 讗讛专谉


搂 With regard to bringing near, this is as it is written: 鈥淎nd this is the law of the meal-offering: The sons of Aaron shall bring it near鈥 (Leviticus 6:7). This teaches that the sons of Aaron bring the meal-offering near, but not the daughters of Aaron.


拽诪讬爪讜转 讚讻转讬讘 讜讛讘讬讗讛 讗诇 讘谞讬 讗讛专谉 讜拽诪抓 讘谞讬 讗讛专谉 讜诇讗 讘谞讜转 讗讛专谉


With regard to the removal of a handful, this is as it is written: 鈥淎nd he shall bring it to the sons of Aaron, the priests, and he shall remove a handful鈥 (Leviticus 2:2). This teaches that the sons of Aaron take a handful, but not the daughters of Aaron.


讛拽讟专讜转 讚讻转讬讘 讜讛拽讟讬专讜 讗转讜 讘谞讬 讗讛专谉 讘谞讬 讗讛专谉 讜诇讗 讘谞讜转 讗讛专谉


With regard to the burning of sacrificial parts, this is as it is written: 鈥淎nd the sons of Aaron shall burn it鈥 (Leviticus 3:5). This teaches that it is the sons of Aaron who burn the parts, but not the daughters of Aaron.


讛诪诇讬拽讜转 讚讻转讬讘 讜诪诇拽 讜讛拽讟讬专 讗讬转拽砖 诪诇讬拽讛 诇讛拽讟专讛


With regard to pinching, this is as it is written: 鈥淎nd he shall pinch鈥nd he shall burn鈥 (Leviticus 1:15). The verse juxtaposes killing to burning, and just as the burning of an offering must be performed by men, so too pinching may be performed only by men.


讛拽讘诇讜转 讚讻转讬讘 讜讛拽专讬讘讜 讘谞讬 讗讛专谉 讜讗诪专 诪专


With regard to receiving, this is as it is written: 鈥淎nd the sons of Aaron shall present the blood鈥 (Leviticus 1:5). And the Master said in explanation of this verse:


讜讛拽专讬讘讜 讝讜 拽讘诇转 讛讚诐:


鈥淎nd the sons of Aaron shall present,鈥 this is collecting the blood.


讜讛讝讗讜转: 讛讝讗讛 讚讛讬讻讗 讗讬 讚驻专讛 讗诇注讝专 讻转讜讘 讘讛 讗讬 讚驻谞讬诐 讛讻讛谉 讛诪砖讬讞 讻转讜讘 讘讛 讗诇讗 讛讝讗讛 讚讘谉 注讜祝


The Gemara discusses the mishna鈥檚 ruling that women do not perform sprinkling: To which sprinkling is this referring? If this is the sprinkling of the ashes of the red heifer, 鈥淓lazar鈥 is written with regard to that action (Numbers 19:4), i.e., this sprinkling is performed by the deputy High Priest. If even other priests cannot perform it, certainly women cannot. If this is referring to the sprinkling performed inside the Holy of Holies, the phrase: 鈥淭he anointed priest鈥 (Leviticus 4:16), is written with regard to that rite, and consequently there is no question that women are ineligible. Rather, it is referring to sprinkling the blood of a bird-offering.


讚讗转讬讗 讘拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 诪讘谉 爪讗谉 讜诪讛 讘谉 爪讗谉 砖诇讗 拽讘注 诇讜 讻讛谉 诇砖讞讬讟转讜 拽讘注 诇讜 讻讛谉 诇讛讝讗转讜 讘谉 注讜祝 砖拽讘注 诇讜 讻讛谉 诇诪诇讬拽转讜 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖讬拽讘注 诇讜 诇讛讝讗转讜


The Gemara explains that this is derived through an a fortiori inference from a sheep offering: If with regard to a sheep offering, concerning which the Torah did not establish a priest for its slaughter, since it may be slaughtered by anybody, the Torah nevertheless established a priest for its sprinkling, as the verse states: 鈥淎nd the sons of Aaron, the priests, shall sprinkle its blood鈥 (Leviticus 1:11), is it not logical that with regard to a bird-offering, concerning which the Torah established a priest for its pinching, an act parallel to slaughtering a sheep, the Torah likewise established a priest for its sprinkling? This proves that the sprinkling of the blood of a bird-offering can be performed only by priests, not by women.


讞讜抓 诪诪谞讞转 住讜讟讛 讜谞讝讬专讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诇专讘讬 讬讗砖讬讛 讚讚专讬讛 诇讗 转讬转讬讘 讗讻专注讱 注讚 讚讗诪专转 诇讬 诇讛讗 砖诪注转转讗 诪谞讬谉 诇诪谞讞转 住讜讟讛 砖讟注讜谞讛 转谞讜驻讛 诪谞诇谉 讘讙讜驻讛 讻转讬讘 讜讛谞讬祝 讗转 讛诪谞讞讛 讗诇讗 转谞讜驻讛 讘讘注诇讬诐 诪谞诇谉


搂 The mishna teaches that these mitzvot apply specifically to men but not to women, except for the meal-offering of a sota and a nazirite woman, which these women wave. Rabbi Elazar said to Rabbi Yoshiya of his generation, i.e., the amora who was his contemporary, not the tanna with the same name who lived earlier: Do not sit down until you explain this statement to me; from where is it derived that the meal-offering of a sota requires waving? The Gemara expresses surprise: What is the meaning of the question: From where do we derive it? It is written in the chapter dealing with a sota itself: 鈥淎nd he shall wave the meal-offering鈥 (Numbers 5:25). Rather, the question is as follows: From where do we derive that the waving is performed by the owners? Perhaps only the priest waves it?


讗转讬讗 讬讚 讬讚 诪砖诇诪讬诐 讻转讬讘 讛讻讗 讜诇拽讞 讛讻讛谉 诪讬讚 讛讗砖讛 讜讻转讬讘 讛转诐 讬讚讬讜 转讘讬讗谞讛


Rabbi Yoshiya responded: This halakha is derived through the verbal analogy of the term 鈥渉and鈥 stated with regard to a sota from the term 鈥渉and鈥 stated with regard to a peace-offering. It is written here, with regard to the meal-offering of a sota: 鈥淎nd the priest shall take the meal-offering of jealousy from the woman鈥檚 hand and he shall wave the meal-offering鈥 (Numbers 5:25), and it is written there: 鈥淗is own hands shall bring the offerings of the Lord made by fire; the fat with the breast shall he bring, that the breast may be waved before the Lord鈥 (Leviticus 7:30).


诪讛 讻讗谉 讻讛谉 讗祝 诇讛诇谉 讻讛谉 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 讘注诇讬诐 讗祝 讻讗谉 讘注诇讬诐 讛讗 讻讬爪讚 讻讛谉 诪讻谞讬住 讬讚讜 转讞转 讬讚 讘注诇讬诐 讜诪谞讬祝


Just as here, with regard to a sota, a priest performs the waving, so too there, with regard to a peace-offering, a priest performs the waving. And just as there, with regard to a peace-offering, the owner performs the waving, as indicated by the verse, so too here, with regard to a sota, the owner performs the waving. How so? How can both the priest and the owner perform the waving? The owner places his hands beneath the peace-offering, and the priest places his hand under the hand of the owner and waves it together with him.


讗砖讻讞谉 住讜讟讛 谞讝讬专讛 诪谞诇谉 讗转讬讗 讻祝 讻祝 诪住讜讟讛


The Gemara asks: We found a source for the meal-offering of a sota; from where do we derive that a nazirite woman also waves her meal-offering? The Gemara answers: It is derived through a verbal analogy of the term 鈥減alm鈥 stated with regard to naziriteship from the term 鈥減alm鈥 stated with regard to a sota. The verse concerning naziriteship states: 鈥淎nd he shall place them upon the palms of the nazirite鈥 (Numbers 6:19), and the verse concerning a sota states: 鈥淎nd he shall place it on her palms鈥 (Numbers 5:18). Just as a sota waves her meal-offering, so too, a nazirite woman waves hers.


诪转谞讬壮 讻诇 诪爪讜讛 砖讛讬讗 转诇讜讬讛 讘讗专抓 讗讬谞讛 谞讜讛讙转 讗诇讗 讘讗专抓 讜砖讗讬谞讛 转诇讜讬讛 讘讗专抓 谞讜讛讙转 讘讬谉 讘讗专抓 讘讬谉 讘讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓


MISHNA: Any mitzva that is dependent on the land [aretz] applies only in Eretz Yisrael, and any mitzva that is not dependent on the land applies both in Eretz Yisrael and outside of Eretz Yisrael.

Scroll To Top