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

Today's Daf Yomi

November 18, 2015 | 讜壮 讘讻住诇讜 转砖注状讜

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Sotah 23

The meal offering of the Sotah married to a Kohen presents a quandary – is it treated as a meal offering聽of a Kohen and burned entirely or is it treated as her meal offering and the remainder is eaten by a Kohen. 聽Many halachot聽are brought where there are differences between a Kohen and the daughter of a Kohen and also ones where there is a difference between men and women. Study Guide Sotah 23


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

讛讗讜诪专转 讟诪讗讛 讗谞讬 诇讱 讜砖讘讗讜 诇讛 注讚讬诐 砖讛讬讗 讟诪讗讛 讜讛讗讜诪专转 讗讬谞讬 砖讜转讛 讜砖讘注诇讛 讗讬谞讜 专讜爪讛 诇讛砖拽讜转讛 讜砖讘注诇讛 讘讗 注诇讬讛 讘讚专讱

A woman who confesses and says: I am defiled, and therefore prohibited to you; and a woman with regard to whom witnesses came and testified that she is defiled; and a woman who says: I will not drink the bitter water of a sota, even if she does not confess her guilt; and a woman whose husband changed his mind and does not want to force her to drink; and a woman whose husband engaged in sexual intercourse with her on the way to the Temple.

讜讻诇 讛谞砖讜讗讜转 诇讻讛谞讬诐 诪谞讞讜转讬讛谉 谞砖专驻讜转 讘转 讬砖专讗诇 砖谞砖讗转 诇讻讛谉 诪谞讞转讛 谞砖专驻转 讜讻讛谞转 砖谞砖讗转 诇讬砖专讗诇 诪谞讞转讛 谞讗讻诇转

And all the women who are married to priests, their meal-offerings are always burned, as the verse states: 鈥淎nd every meal-offering of a priest shall be completely burned; it shall not be eaten鈥 (Leviticus 6:16). An Israelite woman who is married to a priest, her meal-offering is burned; and the daughter of a priest who is married to an Israelite, her meal-offering is eaten.

诪讛 讘讬谉 讻讛谉 诇讻讛谞转 诪谞讞转 讻讛谞转 谞讗讻诇转 讜诪谞讞转 讻讛谉 讗讬谞讛 谞讗讻诇转 讻讛谞转 诪转讞诇诇转 讜讻讛谉 讗讬谉 诪转讞诇诇

The mishna asks a general question: What are the differences between a priest and the daughter of a priest? The meal-offering of the daughter of a priest is eaten by the priests, but the meal-offering of a priest is not eaten. The daughter of a priest can become disqualified from marrying a priest and from partaking of teruma by engaging in sexual intercourse with someone forbidden to her, but a priest does not become desacralized by engaging in sexual intercourse with a woman forbidden to him.

讻讛谞转 诪讟诪讗讛 诇诪转讬诐 讜讗讬谉 讻讛谉 诪讟诪讗 诇诪转讬诐 讻讛谉 讗讜讻诇 讘拽讚砖讬 拽讚砖讬诐 讜讗讬谉 讻讛谞转 讗讜讻诇转 讘拽讚砖讬 拽讚砖讬诐

The daughter of a priest may become impure with impurity imparted by a corpse, but a priest may not become impure with impurity imparted by a corpse except for the burial of his seven closest relatives. A priest may eat from offerings of the most sacred order, but the daughter of a priest may not eat from offerings of the most sacred order.

诪讛 讘讬谉 讗讬砖 诇讗砖讛 讛讗讬砖 驻讜专注 讜驻讜专诐 讜讗讬谉 讛讗砖讛 驻讜专注转 讜驻讜专诪转 讛讗讬砖 诪讚讬专 讗转 讘谞讜 讘谞讝讬专 讜讗讬谉 讛讗砖讛 诪讚专转 讘谞讛 讘谞讝讬专 讛讗讬砖 诪讙诇讞 注诇 谞讝讬专讜转 讗讘讬讜 讜讗讬谉 讛讗砖讛 诪讙诇讞转 注诇 谞讝讬专讜转 讗讘讬讛

What are the halakhic differences between a man and a woman? A man lets his hair grow and rends his garments when he is a leper, but a woman does not let her hair grow or rend her garments when she is a leper. A man can vow that his minor son shall be a nazirite, obligating the son to remain a nazirite even during his adulthood, but a woman cannot vow that her son shall be a nazirite. A man can shave at the culmination of his naziriteship by using offerings originally designated for his father鈥檚 naziriteship, i.e., if one鈥檚 father was also a nazirite and he died having already designated offerings for the culmination of his naziriteship; but a woman cannot shave at the culmination of her naziriteship by using offerings designated for her father鈥檚 naziriteship.

讛讗讬砖 诪拽讚砖 讗转 讘转讜 讜讗讬谉 讛讗砖讛 诪拽讚砖转 讗转 讘转讛 讛讗讬砖 诪讜讻专 讗转 讘转讜 讜讗讬谉 讛讗砖讛 诪讜讻专转 讗转 讘转讛 讛讗讬砖 谞住拽诇 注专讜诐 讜讗讬谉 讛讗砖讛 谞住拽诇转 注专讜诪讛 讛讗讬砖 谞转诇讛 讜讗讬谉 讛讗砖讛 谞转诇讬转 讛讗讬砖 谞诪讻专 讘讙谞讬讘转讜 讜讗讬谉 讛讗砖讛 谞诪讻专转 讘讙谞讬讘转讛

A man can betroth his daughter to another man while she is a minor, but a woman cannot betroth her daughter even while she is a minor. A man can sell his daughter as a maidservant while she is a minor, but a woman cannot sell her daughter as a maidservant even while she is a minor. A man is stoned naked, but a woman is not stoned naked. A man is hanged after he is stoned for certain transgressions, but a woman is not hanged. A man is sold for his committing an act of theft in order to pay his debt, but a woman is not sold for her committing an act of theft.

讙诪壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讻诇 讛谞砖讜讗讜转 诇讻讛讜谞讛 诪谞讞讜转讬讛谉 谞砖专驻讜转 讻讬爪讚 讻讛谞转 诇讜讬讛 讜讬砖专讗诇讬转 砖谞砖讗转 诇讻讛谉 讗讬谉 诪谞讞转讛 谞讗讻诇转 诪驻谞讬 砖讬砖 诇讜 讞诇拽 讘讛 讜讗讬谞讛 注讜诇讛 讻诇讬诇 诪驻谞讬 砖讬砖 诇讛 讞诇拽 讘讛 讗诇讗 讛拽讜诪抓 拽专讘 讘注爪诪讜 讜讛砖讬专讬诐 拽专讬讘讬谉 讘注爪诪谉

GEMARA: The Sages taught (Tosefta 2:6): All the women who are married into the priesthood, their meal-offerings are burned. How so? With regard to the daughter of a priest, or the daughter of a Levite or an Israelite woman who is married to a priest, her meal-offering is not eaten due to the fact that her father or husband, respectively, has a share in the meal-offering, and it is therefore treated as the meal-offering of a priest, which is not eaten. But it is not completely burned without removing a handful from it, as the Torah states with regard to the meal-offering of a priest, due to the fact that she also has a share in it. Rather, the handful is sacrificed by itself, and the remainder of the meal-offering is sacrificed by itself.

讗讬拽专讬 讻讗谉 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 诪诪谞讜 诇讗讬砖讬诐 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讘讘诇 转拽讟讬专讜 讗诪专 讬讛讜讚讛 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 驻讝讬 讚诪住讬拽 诇讛讜 诇砖讜诐 注爪讬诐 讻专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 诇专讬讞 谞讬讞讜讞 讗讬 讗转讛 诪注诇讛 讗讘诇 讗转讛 诪注诇讬讛讜 诇砖讜诐 注爪讬诐

The Gemara asks: One should apply here the principle that in the case of any offering that is meant to be partly burned on the flames of the altar, one who burns the remainder of the offering is subject to the prohibition: Do not burn. This prohibition is derived from the verse: 鈥淵ou shall not burn of it as an offering made by fire unto the Lord鈥 (Leviticus 2:11). Yehuda, son of Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi, said that the priest burns the remainder not as an offering but for the purpose of firewood. This is permitted, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer says: With regard to those parts of an offering which may not be burned, for a pleasing aroma you may not burn them; however, you may burn them on the altar for the purpose of firewood.

讛谞讬讞讗 诇专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 讛讗讬 住讘专讗 讗诇讗 诇专讘谞谉 讚诇讬转 诇讛讜 讛讗讬 住讘专讗 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讚注讘讚讬 诇讛讜 讻专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讛拽讜诪抓 拽专讘 讘注爪诪讜 讜讛砖讬专讬诐 诪转驻讝专讬诐 注诇 讘讬转 讛讚砖谉

The Gemara continues: This works out well according to the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who holds in accordance with this reasoning and permits burning the remainder of an offering as firewood; however, according to the Rabbis, who do not hold in accordance with this reasoning, what can be said? How is the remainder burned on the altar? The Gemara answers: With regard to the remainder, they act in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, says with regard to the meal-offering of a sinner who is a priest: The handful is removed from the meal-offering and sacrificed by itself, and the remainder is neither eaten nor burned on the altar; rather, it is scattered on the place of the ashes.

讜讗驻讬诇讜 专讘谞谉 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 注诇讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗诇讗 讘诪谞讞转 讞讜讟讗 砖诇 讻讛谞讬诐 讚讘转 讛拽专讘讛 讛讬讗 讗讘诇 讘讛讗 讗驻讬诇讜 专讘谞谉 诪讜讚讜

And even the Rabbis do not disagree with Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, except with regard to the meal-offering of a sinner who is a priest, as they hold that it is fit to be sacrificed in its entirety without removing a handful. However, in this case, i.e., in the case of the meal-offering of a sota who is married to a priest, even the Rabbis agree that its remainder is scattered on the place of the ashes, since the handful is removed from the offering.

讘转 讬砖专讗诇 讛谞砖讜讗讛 讜讻讜壮 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讻诇 诪谞讞转 讻讛谉 讻诇讬诇 转讛讬讛 诇讗 转讗讻诇 讻讛谉 讜诇讗 讻讛谞转

搂 The mishna states: In the case of an Israelite woman who is married to a priest, her meal-offering is burned; and in the case of the daughter of a priest who is married to an Israelite, her meal-offering is eaten. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this? This is as the verse states: 鈥淎nd every meal-offering of a priest shall be completely burned; it shall not be eaten鈥 (Leviticus 6:16). One can infer that this applies to a priest, but not to the daughter of a priest.

讻讛谞转 诪转讞诇诇转 讻讛谉 讗讬谉 诪转讞诇诇 诪谞诇谉 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讜诇讗 讬讞诇诇 讝专注讜 讘注诪讬讜 讝专注讜 诪转讞诇诇 讜讛讜讗 讗讬谞讜 诪转讞诇诇

The mishna states: The daughter of a priest can become disqualified from marrying a priest and from partaking of teruma by engaging in sexual intercourse with someone forbidden to her, but a priest does not become desacralized by engaging in sexual intercourse with a woman forbidden to him. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this? It is as the verse states with regard to a priest who marries a woman forbidden to him: 鈥淎nd he shall not disqualify his offspring among his people鈥 (Leviticus 21:15), indicating that his offspring from forbidden intercourse are desacralized, but he is not personally desacralized through his actions.

讻讛谞转 诪讟诪讗讛 讻讜壮 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗诪专 拽专讗 讗诪专 讗诇 讛讻讛谞讬诐 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

The mishna states: A daughter of a priest may become impure with impurity imparted by a corpse, but a priest may not. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this? The Gemara answers: The verse states: 鈥淪peak to the priests, the sons of Aaron, and say to them: None shall become impure for the dead among his people鈥 (Leviticus 21:1). The verse indicates that this applies to the sons of Aaron and not to the daughters of Aaron.

讻讛谉 讗讜讻诇 讘拽讚砖讬 拽讚砖讬诐 讚讻转讬讘 讻诇 讝讻专 讘讘谞讬 讗讛专谉 讬讗讻诇谞讛

The mishna states: A priest may eat from offerings of the most sacred order, but a daughter of a priest may not eat from offerings of the most sacred order. The Gemara explains: This is derived as it is written with regard to the meal-offering, which is an offering of the most sacred order: 鈥淓very male among the children of Aaron may eat of it鈥 (Leviticus 6:11).

讜诪讛 讘讬谉 讗讬砖 讻讜壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗讬砖 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讗讬砖 讗砖讛 诪谞讬谉 讻砖讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讜讛爪专讜注 讗砖专 讘讜 讛专讬 讻讗谉 砖谞讬诐

搂 The mishna states: And what are the halakhic differences between a man and a woman? A man lets his hair grow and rends his garments when he is a leper, but a woman does not. The Sages taught: The verse states: 鈥淗e is a leprous man, he is impure鈥 (Leviticus 13:44). I have derived only that the halakhot of a confirmed leper apply to a man; from where do I derive that they apply to a woman? When it says in the subsequent verse: 鈥淎nd the leper in whom the plague is, his clothes shall be rent, and the hair of his head shall grow wild and he shall cover his upper lip; and he shall cry: Impure, impure鈥 (Leviticus 13:45), there are two individuals indicated here, as this verse did not need to restate 鈥渁nd the leper,鈥 as the subject of the verse was clear from the previous verse.

讗诐 讻谉 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗讬砖 诇注谞讬谉 砖诇诪讟讛 讗讬砖 驻讜专注 讜讻讜壮

If so, what is the meaning when the verse states: A leprous 鈥渕an鈥? This is referring to the matter of rending one鈥檚 clothes and letting one鈥檚 hair grow wild, which is stated in the verse below, and teaches that a man lets the hair of his head grow and rends his garments, but a woman does not.

讛讗讬砖 诪讚讬专 讗转 讘谞讜 讘谞讝讬专 讜讗讬谉 讛讗砖讛 诪讚专转 讘谞讛 讘谞讝讬专 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛诇讻讛 讛讬讗 讘谞讝讬专 讛讗讬砖 诪讙诇讞 注诇 谞讝讬专讜转 讗讘讬讜 讜讗讬谉 讛讗砖讛 诪讙诇讞转 注诇 谞讝讬专讜转 讗讘讬讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛诇讻讛 讛讬讗 讘谞讝讬专

The mishna states: A man can vow that his minor son shall be a nazirite, but a woman cannot vow that her son shall be a nazirite. Rabbi Yo岣nan says: This is a halakha transmitted orally to Moses from Sinai with regard to the nazirite, and it is not derived from the Bible. The mishna states: A man can shave at the culmination of his naziriteship by using offerings designated for his father鈥檚 naziriteship, but a woman cannot shave by using offerings designated for her father鈥檚 naziriteship. Rabbi Yo岣nan says: This is a halakha transmitted orally to Moses from Sinai with regard to the nazirite, and it is not derived from the Bible.

讛讗讬砖 诪拽讚砖 讗转 讘转讜 讜讗讬谉 讛讗砖讛 诪拽讚砖转 讗转 讘转讛 讚讻转讬讘 讗转 讘转讬 谞转转讬 诇讗讬砖 讛讝讛 讛讗讬砖 诪讜讻专 讗转 讘转讜 讜讗讬谉 讛讗砖讛 诪讜讻专转 讗转 讘转讛 讚讻转讬讘 讜讻讬 讬诪讻讜专 讗讬砖 讗转 讘转讜

The mishna states: A man can betroth his daughter to another man while she is a minor, but a woman cannot betroth her daughter. The Gemara explains: This is as it is written: 鈥淎nd the father of the maiden shall say to the elders: I gave my daughter to this man as a wife鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:16), indicating that it is only the father who has the power to betroth his daughter. The mishna states: A man can sell his daughter as a maidservant but a woman cannot sell her daughter. The Gemara explains: This is derived as it is written: 鈥淎nd if a man sells his daughter to be a maidservant鈥 (Exodus 21:7), indicating that only a man can sell his daughter, while a woman cannot.

讛讗讬砖 谞住拽诇 注专讜诐 讻讜壮 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讜专讙诪讜 讗讜转讜 诪讗讬 讗讜转讜 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讗讜转讜 讜诇讗 讗讜转讛 讜讛讻转讬讘 讜讛讜爪讗转 讗转 讛讗讬砖 讛讛讜讗 讗讜 讗转 讛讗砖讛 讛讛讬讗 讗诇讗 讗讜转讜 讘诇讗 讻住讜转讜 讜诇讗 讗讜转讛 讘诇讗 讻住讜转讛

搂 The mishna states: A man is stoned naked, but a woman is not stoned naked. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this? The Gemara answers: The verse states: 鈥淎nd let the entire congregation stone him鈥 (Leviticus 24:14). What does the term 鈥渉im鈥 come to exclude? If we say this means that they stone him but not her, i.e., that a woman is not stoned at all, but isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淎nd you shall take out that man or that woman, who did this evil thing, to your gates, that man or that woman; and you shall stone them with stones, and they shall die鈥 (Deuteronomy 17:5). Rather, the term 鈥渉im鈥 excludes his garment, indicating that he is stoned without his garment. And a woman is excluded from this halakha, as one may infer from the term 鈥渉im鈥 that they do not stone her without her garment.

讛讗讬砖 谞转诇讛 讜讗讬谉 讻讜壮 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜转诇讬转 讗讜转讜 注诇 注抓 讗讜转讜 讜诇讗 讗讜转讛

The mishna states: A man is hanged, but a woman is not hanged. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this? The verse states: 鈥淎nd if a man has committed a sin worthy of death, and he is put to death, and you shall hang him on a tree鈥 (Deuteronomy 21:22). The verse indicates that one should hang 鈥渉im,鈥 a man, but not her, a woman.

讛讗讬砖 谞诪讻专 讘讙谞讬讘转讜 讜讗讬谉 讛讗砖讛 谞诪讻专转 讘讙谞讬讘转讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜谞诪讻专 讘讙谞讬讘转讜 讘讙谞讬讘转讜 讜诇讗 讘讙谞讬讘转讛

The mishna states: A man is sold for his committing an act of theft, but a woman is not sold for her committing an act of theft. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this? The verse states: 鈥淚f the sun rose upon him, there is blood-guilt for him; he shall make restitution; if he has nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft鈥 (Exodus 22:2). The verse indicates that he is sold for his theft, but she is not sold for her theft.

讛讚专谉 注诇讱 讛讬讛 谞讜讟诇

 

诪转谞讬壮 讗专讜住讛 讜砖讜诪专转 讬讘诐 诇讗 砖讜转讜转 讜诇讗 谞讜讟诇讜转 讻转讜讘讛 砖谞讗诪专 讗砖专 转砖讟讛 讗砖讛 转讞转 讗讬砖讛 驻专讟 诇讗专讜住讛 讜砖讜诪专转 讬讘诐

MISHNA: With regard to a betrothed woman who secluded herself with another man after being warned by her betrothed, and a widow waiting for her brother-in-law [yavam] to perform levirate marriage who secluded herself with another man after being warned by her yavam, they neither drink the bitter water nor collect payment of their marriage contracts. The reason they are not entitled to payment of their marriage contracts is that the betrothed woman became forbidden to her betrothed or the widow became forbidden to her yavam due to her own actions of entering into seclusion with the paramour. And the fact that they do not drink the bitter water is as it is stated: 鈥淭his is the law of jealousy, when a wife, while under her husband, goes astray, and is defiled鈥 (Numbers 5:29). The verse excludes a betrothed woman and a widow awaiting her yavam; since they are not yet married, neither is considered as 鈥渦nder her husband.鈥

讗诇诪谞讛 诇讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讙专讜砖讛 讜讞诇讜爪讛 诇讻讛谉 讛讚讬讜讟 诪诪讝专转

The mishna delineates cases where the woman鈥檚 marriage was prohibited in the first place: With regard to a widow who was married to a High Priest, or a divorc茅e or 岣lutza who was married to a common priest, or a mamzeret

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

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

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Sotah 23

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Sotah 23

讛讗讜诪专转 讟诪讗讛 讗谞讬 诇讱 讜砖讘讗讜 诇讛 注讚讬诐 砖讛讬讗 讟诪讗讛 讜讛讗讜诪专转 讗讬谞讬 砖讜转讛 讜砖讘注诇讛 讗讬谞讜 专讜爪讛 诇讛砖拽讜转讛 讜砖讘注诇讛 讘讗 注诇讬讛 讘讚专讱

A woman who confesses and says: I am defiled, and therefore prohibited to you; and a woman with regard to whom witnesses came and testified that she is defiled; and a woman who says: I will not drink the bitter water of a sota, even if she does not confess her guilt; and a woman whose husband changed his mind and does not want to force her to drink; and a woman whose husband engaged in sexual intercourse with her on the way to the Temple.

讜讻诇 讛谞砖讜讗讜转 诇讻讛谞讬诐 诪谞讞讜转讬讛谉 谞砖专驻讜转 讘转 讬砖专讗诇 砖谞砖讗转 诇讻讛谉 诪谞讞转讛 谞砖专驻转 讜讻讛谞转 砖谞砖讗转 诇讬砖专讗诇 诪谞讞转讛 谞讗讻诇转

And all the women who are married to priests, their meal-offerings are always burned, as the verse states: 鈥淎nd every meal-offering of a priest shall be completely burned; it shall not be eaten鈥 (Leviticus 6:16). An Israelite woman who is married to a priest, her meal-offering is burned; and the daughter of a priest who is married to an Israelite, her meal-offering is eaten.

诪讛 讘讬谉 讻讛谉 诇讻讛谞转 诪谞讞转 讻讛谞转 谞讗讻诇转 讜诪谞讞转 讻讛谉 讗讬谞讛 谞讗讻诇转 讻讛谞转 诪转讞诇诇转 讜讻讛谉 讗讬谉 诪转讞诇诇

The mishna asks a general question: What are the differences between a priest and the daughter of a priest? The meal-offering of the daughter of a priest is eaten by the priests, but the meal-offering of a priest is not eaten. The daughter of a priest can become disqualified from marrying a priest and from partaking of teruma by engaging in sexual intercourse with someone forbidden to her, but a priest does not become desacralized by engaging in sexual intercourse with a woman forbidden to him.

讻讛谞转 诪讟诪讗讛 诇诪转讬诐 讜讗讬谉 讻讛谉 诪讟诪讗 诇诪转讬诐 讻讛谉 讗讜讻诇 讘拽讚砖讬 拽讚砖讬诐 讜讗讬谉 讻讛谞转 讗讜讻诇转 讘拽讚砖讬 拽讚砖讬诐

The daughter of a priest may become impure with impurity imparted by a corpse, but a priest may not become impure with impurity imparted by a corpse except for the burial of his seven closest relatives. A priest may eat from offerings of the most sacred order, but the daughter of a priest may not eat from offerings of the most sacred order.

诪讛 讘讬谉 讗讬砖 诇讗砖讛 讛讗讬砖 驻讜专注 讜驻讜专诐 讜讗讬谉 讛讗砖讛 驻讜专注转 讜驻讜专诪转 讛讗讬砖 诪讚讬专 讗转 讘谞讜 讘谞讝讬专 讜讗讬谉 讛讗砖讛 诪讚专转 讘谞讛 讘谞讝讬专 讛讗讬砖 诪讙诇讞 注诇 谞讝讬专讜转 讗讘讬讜 讜讗讬谉 讛讗砖讛 诪讙诇讞转 注诇 谞讝讬专讜转 讗讘讬讛

What are the halakhic differences between a man and a woman? A man lets his hair grow and rends his garments when he is a leper, but a woman does not let her hair grow or rend her garments when she is a leper. A man can vow that his minor son shall be a nazirite, obligating the son to remain a nazirite even during his adulthood, but a woman cannot vow that her son shall be a nazirite. A man can shave at the culmination of his naziriteship by using offerings originally designated for his father鈥檚 naziriteship, i.e., if one鈥檚 father was also a nazirite and he died having already designated offerings for the culmination of his naziriteship; but a woman cannot shave at the culmination of her naziriteship by using offerings designated for her father鈥檚 naziriteship.

讛讗讬砖 诪拽讚砖 讗转 讘转讜 讜讗讬谉 讛讗砖讛 诪拽讚砖转 讗转 讘转讛 讛讗讬砖 诪讜讻专 讗转 讘转讜 讜讗讬谉 讛讗砖讛 诪讜讻专转 讗转 讘转讛 讛讗讬砖 谞住拽诇 注专讜诐 讜讗讬谉 讛讗砖讛 谞住拽诇转 注专讜诪讛 讛讗讬砖 谞转诇讛 讜讗讬谉 讛讗砖讛 谞转诇讬转 讛讗讬砖 谞诪讻专 讘讙谞讬讘转讜 讜讗讬谉 讛讗砖讛 谞诪讻专转 讘讙谞讬讘转讛

A man can betroth his daughter to another man while she is a minor, but a woman cannot betroth her daughter even while she is a minor. A man can sell his daughter as a maidservant while she is a minor, but a woman cannot sell her daughter as a maidservant even while she is a minor. A man is stoned naked, but a woman is not stoned naked. A man is hanged after he is stoned for certain transgressions, but a woman is not hanged. A man is sold for his committing an act of theft in order to pay his debt, but a woman is not sold for her committing an act of theft.

讙诪壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讻诇 讛谞砖讜讗讜转 诇讻讛讜谞讛 诪谞讞讜转讬讛谉 谞砖专驻讜转 讻讬爪讚 讻讛谞转 诇讜讬讛 讜讬砖专讗诇讬转 砖谞砖讗转 诇讻讛谉 讗讬谉 诪谞讞转讛 谞讗讻诇转 诪驻谞讬 砖讬砖 诇讜 讞诇拽 讘讛 讜讗讬谞讛 注讜诇讛 讻诇讬诇 诪驻谞讬 砖讬砖 诇讛 讞诇拽 讘讛 讗诇讗 讛拽讜诪抓 拽专讘 讘注爪诪讜 讜讛砖讬专讬诐 拽专讬讘讬谉 讘注爪诪谉

GEMARA: The Sages taught (Tosefta 2:6): All the women who are married into the priesthood, their meal-offerings are burned. How so? With regard to the daughter of a priest, or the daughter of a Levite or an Israelite woman who is married to a priest, her meal-offering is not eaten due to the fact that her father or husband, respectively, has a share in the meal-offering, and it is therefore treated as the meal-offering of a priest, which is not eaten. But it is not completely burned without removing a handful from it, as the Torah states with regard to the meal-offering of a priest, due to the fact that she also has a share in it. Rather, the handful is sacrificed by itself, and the remainder of the meal-offering is sacrificed by itself.

讗讬拽专讬 讻讗谉 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 诪诪谞讜 诇讗讬砖讬诐 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讘讘诇 转拽讟讬专讜 讗诪专 讬讛讜讚讛 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 驻讝讬 讚诪住讬拽 诇讛讜 诇砖讜诐 注爪讬诐 讻专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 诇专讬讞 谞讬讞讜讞 讗讬 讗转讛 诪注诇讛 讗讘诇 讗转讛 诪注诇讬讛讜 诇砖讜诐 注爪讬诐

The Gemara asks: One should apply here the principle that in the case of any offering that is meant to be partly burned on the flames of the altar, one who burns the remainder of the offering is subject to the prohibition: Do not burn. This prohibition is derived from the verse: 鈥淵ou shall not burn of it as an offering made by fire unto the Lord鈥 (Leviticus 2:11). Yehuda, son of Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi, said that the priest burns the remainder not as an offering but for the purpose of firewood. This is permitted, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer says: With regard to those parts of an offering which may not be burned, for a pleasing aroma you may not burn them; however, you may burn them on the altar for the purpose of firewood.

讛谞讬讞讗 诇专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 讛讗讬 住讘专讗 讗诇讗 诇专讘谞谉 讚诇讬转 诇讛讜 讛讗讬 住讘专讗 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讚注讘讚讬 诇讛讜 讻专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讛拽讜诪抓 拽专讘 讘注爪诪讜 讜讛砖讬专讬诐 诪转驻讝专讬诐 注诇 讘讬转 讛讚砖谉

The Gemara continues: This works out well according to the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who holds in accordance with this reasoning and permits burning the remainder of an offering as firewood; however, according to the Rabbis, who do not hold in accordance with this reasoning, what can be said? How is the remainder burned on the altar? The Gemara answers: With regard to the remainder, they act in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, says with regard to the meal-offering of a sinner who is a priest: The handful is removed from the meal-offering and sacrificed by itself, and the remainder is neither eaten nor burned on the altar; rather, it is scattered on the place of the ashes.

讜讗驻讬诇讜 专讘谞谉 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 注诇讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗诇讗 讘诪谞讞转 讞讜讟讗 砖诇 讻讛谞讬诐 讚讘转 讛拽专讘讛 讛讬讗 讗讘诇 讘讛讗 讗驻讬诇讜 专讘谞谉 诪讜讚讜

And even the Rabbis do not disagree with Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, except with regard to the meal-offering of a sinner who is a priest, as they hold that it is fit to be sacrificed in its entirety without removing a handful. However, in this case, i.e., in the case of the meal-offering of a sota who is married to a priest, even the Rabbis agree that its remainder is scattered on the place of the ashes, since the handful is removed from the offering.

讘转 讬砖专讗诇 讛谞砖讜讗讛 讜讻讜壮 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讻诇 诪谞讞转 讻讛谉 讻诇讬诇 转讛讬讛 诇讗 转讗讻诇 讻讛谉 讜诇讗 讻讛谞转

搂 The mishna states: In the case of an Israelite woman who is married to a priest, her meal-offering is burned; and in the case of the daughter of a priest who is married to an Israelite, her meal-offering is eaten. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this? This is as the verse states: 鈥淎nd every meal-offering of a priest shall be completely burned; it shall not be eaten鈥 (Leviticus 6:16). One can infer that this applies to a priest, but not to the daughter of a priest.

讻讛谞转 诪转讞诇诇转 讻讛谉 讗讬谉 诪转讞诇诇 诪谞诇谉 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讜诇讗 讬讞诇诇 讝专注讜 讘注诪讬讜 讝专注讜 诪转讞诇诇 讜讛讜讗 讗讬谞讜 诪转讞诇诇

The mishna states: The daughter of a priest can become disqualified from marrying a priest and from partaking of teruma by engaging in sexual intercourse with someone forbidden to her, but a priest does not become desacralized by engaging in sexual intercourse with a woman forbidden to him. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this? It is as the verse states with regard to a priest who marries a woman forbidden to him: 鈥淎nd he shall not disqualify his offspring among his people鈥 (Leviticus 21:15), indicating that his offspring from forbidden intercourse are desacralized, but he is not personally desacralized through his actions.

讻讛谞转 诪讟诪讗讛 讻讜壮 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗诪专 拽专讗 讗诪专 讗诇 讛讻讛谞讬诐 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

The mishna states: A daughter of a priest may become impure with impurity imparted by a corpse, but a priest may not. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this? The Gemara answers: The verse states: 鈥淪peak to the priests, the sons of Aaron, and say to them: None shall become impure for the dead among his people鈥 (Leviticus 21:1). The verse indicates that this applies to the sons of Aaron and not to the daughters of Aaron.

讻讛谉 讗讜讻诇 讘拽讚砖讬 拽讚砖讬诐 讚讻转讬讘 讻诇 讝讻专 讘讘谞讬 讗讛专谉 讬讗讻诇谞讛

The mishna states: A priest may eat from offerings of the most sacred order, but a daughter of a priest may not eat from offerings of the most sacred order. The Gemara explains: This is derived as it is written with regard to the meal-offering, which is an offering of the most sacred order: 鈥淓very male among the children of Aaron may eat of it鈥 (Leviticus 6:11).

讜诪讛 讘讬谉 讗讬砖 讻讜壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗讬砖 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讗讬砖 讗砖讛 诪谞讬谉 讻砖讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讜讛爪专讜注 讗砖专 讘讜 讛专讬 讻讗谉 砖谞讬诐

搂 The mishna states: And what are the halakhic differences between a man and a woman? A man lets his hair grow and rends his garments when he is a leper, but a woman does not. The Sages taught: The verse states: 鈥淗e is a leprous man, he is impure鈥 (Leviticus 13:44). I have derived only that the halakhot of a confirmed leper apply to a man; from where do I derive that they apply to a woman? When it says in the subsequent verse: 鈥淎nd the leper in whom the plague is, his clothes shall be rent, and the hair of his head shall grow wild and he shall cover his upper lip; and he shall cry: Impure, impure鈥 (Leviticus 13:45), there are two individuals indicated here, as this verse did not need to restate 鈥渁nd the leper,鈥 as the subject of the verse was clear from the previous verse.

讗诐 讻谉 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗讬砖 诇注谞讬谉 砖诇诪讟讛 讗讬砖 驻讜专注 讜讻讜壮

If so, what is the meaning when the verse states: A leprous 鈥渕an鈥? This is referring to the matter of rending one鈥檚 clothes and letting one鈥檚 hair grow wild, which is stated in the verse below, and teaches that a man lets the hair of his head grow and rends his garments, but a woman does not.

讛讗讬砖 诪讚讬专 讗转 讘谞讜 讘谞讝讬专 讜讗讬谉 讛讗砖讛 诪讚专转 讘谞讛 讘谞讝讬专 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛诇讻讛 讛讬讗 讘谞讝讬专 讛讗讬砖 诪讙诇讞 注诇 谞讝讬专讜转 讗讘讬讜 讜讗讬谉 讛讗砖讛 诪讙诇讞转 注诇 谞讝讬专讜转 讗讘讬讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛诇讻讛 讛讬讗 讘谞讝讬专

The mishna states: A man can vow that his minor son shall be a nazirite, but a woman cannot vow that her son shall be a nazirite. Rabbi Yo岣nan says: This is a halakha transmitted orally to Moses from Sinai with regard to the nazirite, and it is not derived from the Bible. The mishna states: A man can shave at the culmination of his naziriteship by using offerings designated for his father鈥檚 naziriteship, but a woman cannot shave by using offerings designated for her father鈥檚 naziriteship. Rabbi Yo岣nan says: This is a halakha transmitted orally to Moses from Sinai with regard to the nazirite, and it is not derived from the Bible.

讛讗讬砖 诪拽讚砖 讗转 讘转讜 讜讗讬谉 讛讗砖讛 诪拽讚砖转 讗转 讘转讛 讚讻转讬讘 讗转 讘转讬 谞转转讬 诇讗讬砖 讛讝讛 讛讗讬砖 诪讜讻专 讗转 讘转讜 讜讗讬谉 讛讗砖讛 诪讜讻专转 讗转 讘转讛 讚讻转讬讘 讜讻讬 讬诪讻讜专 讗讬砖 讗转 讘转讜

The mishna states: A man can betroth his daughter to another man while she is a minor, but a woman cannot betroth her daughter. The Gemara explains: This is as it is written: 鈥淎nd the father of the maiden shall say to the elders: I gave my daughter to this man as a wife鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:16), indicating that it is only the father who has the power to betroth his daughter. The mishna states: A man can sell his daughter as a maidservant but a woman cannot sell her daughter. The Gemara explains: This is derived as it is written: 鈥淎nd if a man sells his daughter to be a maidservant鈥 (Exodus 21:7), indicating that only a man can sell his daughter, while a woman cannot.

讛讗讬砖 谞住拽诇 注专讜诐 讻讜壮 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讜专讙诪讜 讗讜转讜 诪讗讬 讗讜转讜 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讗讜转讜 讜诇讗 讗讜转讛 讜讛讻转讬讘 讜讛讜爪讗转 讗转 讛讗讬砖 讛讛讜讗 讗讜 讗转 讛讗砖讛 讛讛讬讗 讗诇讗 讗讜转讜 讘诇讗 讻住讜转讜 讜诇讗 讗讜转讛 讘诇讗 讻住讜转讛

搂 The mishna states: A man is stoned naked, but a woman is not stoned naked. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this? The Gemara answers: The verse states: 鈥淎nd let the entire congregation stone him鈥 (Leviticus 24:14). What does the term 鈥渉im鈥 come to exclude? If we say this means that they stone him but not her, i.e., that a woman is not stoned at all, but isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淎nd you shall take out that man or that woman, who did this evil thing, to your gates, that man or that woman; and you shall stone them with stones, and they shall die鈥 (Deuteronomy 17:5). Rather, the term 鈥渉im鈥 excludes his garment, indicating that he is stoned without his garment. And a woman is excluded from this halakha, as one may infer from the term 鈥渉im鈥 that they do not stone her without her garment.

讛讗讬砖 谞转诇讛 讜讗讬谉 讻讜壮 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜转诇讬转 讗讜转讜 注诇 注抓 讗讜转讜 讜诇讗 讗讜转讛

The mishna states: A man is hanged, but a woman is not hanged. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this? The verse states: 鈥淎nd if a man has committed a sin worthy of death, and he is put to death, and you shall hang him on a tree鈥 (Deuteronomy 21:22). The verse indicates that one should hang 鈥渉im,鈥 a man, but not her, a woman.

讛讗讬砖 谞诪讻专 讘讙谞讬讘转讜 讜讗讬谉 讛讗砖讛 谞诪讻专转 讘讙谞讬讘转讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜谞诪讻专 讘讙谞讬讘转讜 讘讙谞讬讘转讜 讜诇讗 讘讙谞讬讘转讛

The mishna states: A man is sold for his committing an act of theft, but a woman is not sold for her committing an act of theft. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this? The verse states: 鈥淚f the sun rose upon him, there is blood-guilt for him; he shall make restitution; if he has nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft鈥 (Exodus 22:2). The verse indicates that he is sold for his theft, but she is not sold for her theft.

讛讚专谉 注诇讱 讛讬讛 谞讜讟诇

 

诪转谞讬壮 讗专讜住讛 讜砖讜诪专转 讬讘诐 诇讗 砖讜转讜转 讜诇讗 谞讜讟诇讜转 讻转讜讘讛 砖谞讗诪专 讗砖专 转砖讟讛 讗砖讛 转讞转 讗讬砖讛 驻专讟 诇讗专讜住讛 讜砖讜诪专转 讬讘诐

MISHNA: With regard to a betrothed woman who secluded herself with another man after being warned by her betrothed, and a widow waiting for her brother-in-law [yavam] to perform levirate marriage who secluded herself with another man after being warned by her yavam, they neither drink the bitter water nor collect payment of their marriage contracts. The reason they are not entitled to payment of their marriage contracts is that the betrothed woman became forbidden to her betrothed or the widow became forbidden to her yavam due to her own actions of entering into seclusion with the paramour. And the fact that they do not drink the bitter water is as it is stated: 鈥淭his is the law of jealousy, when a wife, while under her husband, goes astray, and is defiled鈥 (Numbers 5:29). The verse excludes a betrothed woman and a widow awaiting her yavam; since they are not yet married, neither is considered as 鈥渦nder her husband.鈥

讗诇诪谞讛 诇讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讙专讜砖讛 讜讞诇讜爪讛 诇讻讛谉 讛讚讬讜讟 诪诪讝专转

The mishna delineates cases where the woman鈥檚 marriage was prohibited in the first place: With regard to a widow who was married to a High Priest, or a divorc茅e or 岣lutza who was married to a common priest, or a mamzeret

Scroll To Top