Kiddushin 36a (לו.) — the Talmud in English

And we answer:

Isi holds that the prohibition of

cutting and

making incisions

is one, [since both cutting and making incisions mean doing so either by hand or with an implement]

and therefore it is necessary to say that the verse, “For you are a holy people,” was stated at the very least with regard to making incisions.

Abaye said: This is the reason for Isi,

as he holds that women are exempt from the prohibition against making a bald spot.

Because

he derives

by means of a

gezerah shavah, “bald spot” “bald spot,” from the verse concerning the sons of Aaron [Leviticus 21:5]

, just as there

in the passage concerning priests,

women are exempt

because they were excluded by the expression “sons of Aaron,” but not the daughters of Aaron,

because they were excluded by the words “the sons of Aaron,” and not the daughters of Aaron,

so too here,

with regard to the prohibition against making a bald spot among the Jewish people,

women are exempt.

And we challenge this:

But if we hold that when the verse says [that the expression]

“sons of Aaron” excludes the daughters of Aaron, it was stated

with regard to the entire matter

mentioned in that passage,

that is what is written.

If so,

let the verse be silent concerning it

in the case of the gezerah shavah with regard to the Jewish people,

and let it come

and teach by inference that women are excluded from the prohibition against making a bald spot among the Jewish people

by means of a kal va-chomer.

And I would say [the following kal va-chomer]:

And I say this:

If, with regard to priests, for whom the Torah added numerous additional mitzvot,

nevertheless women were excluded from the prohibition against making a bald spot by the verse

“sons of Aaron”—

but not the daughters of Aaron,

then

with regard to the Jewish people,

for whom the Torah did not add so many mitzvot,

is it not all the more so

that their women are excluded from the prohibition against making a bald spot?

And we answer:

Were it not

for the Torah to inform us of the

gezerah shavah, we would have said [that the words]

“sons of Aaron” in the passage concerning priests, excluding the daughters of Aaron, were stated only with regard to the prohibition against ritual impurity that is written immediately afterward, and not with regard to the prohibition against making a bald spot that is written several verses later [in verse 5], since the verse

interrupted

the

matter

in the interim, with the verse, “for her he may become impure” [Leviticus 21:3], which is written in between.

And we challenge this:

Now [that we derive it by a gezerah shavah],

now that we derive this by a conclusion based on an identical expression,]

shall we also say [that] the verse

that the verse]

interrupted the matter

between the exclusion expressed by “sons of Aaron,” but not the daughters of Aaron, and the prohibition against making a bald spot, and that the exclusion was stated only with regard to the prohibition against priests becoming impure through contact with the dead, and not with regard to the prohibition against making a bald spot?

And if you say it is because of the gezerah shavah

that was written in order to exclude women from the prohibition against making a bald spot, one can say that the gezerah shavah

is needed [for] another exposition.

for another exposition].

As it was taught: “They shall not make a bald spot”—

Could it be that if one makes four or five bald spots, he should be liable for only one?

The verse states: “A bald spot,”

the word “bald spot” being superfluous,

to

teach that one

is liable for each and every one.

“On their heads”—what does the verse come to teach [by the word “on their heads”]

which is stated in the passage concerning priests?

As it is stated

with regard to the Jewish people [Deuteronomy 14:1]:

“You shall not cut yourselves, nor make a bald spot between your eyes for the dead,”

I

might

say that

one should be liable only for

a bald spot

between the eyes

alone.

From where is it derived to include

the

entire head

in the prohibition against making a bald spot?

The verse states:

in the passage concerning priests,

“on their heads,” to render one liable

for a bald spot

on

the entire

head, just as between the eyes.

And I have

learned from the expression “on their heads” that it is prohibited to make a bald spot over the entire head, just as between the eyes,

only

with regard to

priests, for whom the Torah added numerous additional mitzvot. From where do we derive this with regard to the Jewish people,

that they too are prohibited from making a bald spot over the entire head?

For this the gezerah shavah is necessary, for

it is stated here,

in the passage concerning priests,

“bald spot,” and it is stated elsewhere,

with regard to the Jewish people,

“bald spot,”

to equate the prohibition against making a bald spot stated with regard to priests with the prohibition against making a bald spot stated with regard to the Jewish people.

Just as here,

with regard to priests,

one is liable for each and every bald spot, and one is liable for

the

entire head just as

for a bald spot

between the eyes, so too there,

with regard to the Jewish people,

one is liable for each and every bald spot, and one is liable for

the

entire head just as between the eyes. And just as there,

with regard to the Jewish people, the prohibition against making a bald spot is

for the dead,

as it is written, “for the dead,”

so too here,

with regard to priests, the prohibition against making a bald spot is

for the dead!

And since the gezerah shavah is already needed for this purpose, how can we derive from it the exclusion of women from the prohibition against making a bald spot?

And we answer: If the gezerah shavah came to teach us only this matter,

then it would have been sufficient if

it would have been sufficient if

the verse had written

in both places

“bald.”

What [is the significance] of the wording

the significance of the wording

“bald spot”

that was written? It is as though an additional gezerah shavah had been written.

You may infer from it

to learn

two

teachings from the gezerah shavah: both the teaching of the beraita and the exclusion of women from the prohibition against making a bald spot.

Rava said: This is the reason for Isi,

as he holds that women are exempt from the prohibition against making a bald spot.

Because

he derives [by means of]

a gezerah shavah

“between your eyes” from phylacteries; just as there

with regard to phylacteries,

women are exempt, so too here,

with regard to the prohibition against making a bald spot,

women are exempt.

And Rava, what is the reason that he did not state the explanation of Abaye,

to derive from the gezerah shavah of “bald spot” from the passage concerning priests that women are exempt?

And we answer: The fact that the verse did not write

“bald”

but rather

“bald spot” is not meaningful to him;

Rava does not infer from this that an additional teaching may be derived from the gezerah shavah, namely, that women are exempt.

And Abaye, what is the reason that he did not state the explanation of Rava,

to derive from the gezerah shavah of “between your eyes” from phylacteries that women are exempt?

And we answer:

He could say to you,

Abaye:

Phylacteries themselves

[themselves]

derive it from here [from this gezerah shavah] of “between your eyes”:

they are learned by this conclusion based on an identical expression] of “between your eyes”:

Just as there,

with regard to the prohibition against making a bald spot,

the place where a bald spot is made

is

on the upper part of the head,

at the place where the hair grows above the forehead, and not literally between the eyes,

so too here,

with regard to phylacteries,

the place of placement

is

on the upper part of the head,

at the place where the hair grows, and not literally between the eyes.

Therefore, one cannot derive from this gezerah shavah the exclusion of women from the prohibition against making a bald spot.

And we challenge this:

And both according to Abaye and according to Rava,

who do not derive from “You are children of the Lord your God” [Deuteronomy 14:1–2] the exclusion of women from the prohibition against making a bald spot, but derive it from other teachings,

what do they expound from this verse, “You are children”?

And we answer:

This

“You are children”

is needed

for

that which was taught:

“You are children of the Lord your God.”

When you conduct yourselves as children—

you are called children

of the Lord. But when

you do not conduct yourselves as children—

you are not called children

of the Lord, as everything depends on our conduct,

the words of Rabbi Yehuda.

Rabbi Meir says: Whether in this manner or in that manner, you are called children,

just as a son always remains his father’s son, so too you are always considered children of the Lord.

As it is stated:

[Jeremiah 4:22]

“They are foolish children,” and it says:

[Deuteronomy 32:20]

“Children in whom there is no trust,” and it says:

[Isaiah 1:4]

“A seed of evildoers, children who deal corruptly,” and it says:

[Hosea 2:1]

“And it shall be in the place where it was said to them: You are not My people; it shall be said to them: The children of the living God.”

And we examine this:

What is the purpose of “and it says”?

Why did Rabbi Meir need to bring proof from additional verses, rather than suffice with proof from a single verse?

And we explain: The reason he did not suffice with proof only from the verse in Jeremiah, “They are foolish children,” is that

lest you say

[if you say] that only

foolish

[foolish, stupid people], who possess nothing but folly,

are called

[are called]

children,

but when they are wicked,

when there is no

trustworthiness in them

[when they are not trustworthy],

they are not called children.

For this reason,

come and hear,

a proof from the verse in Deuteronomy:

“And it says: ‘Children in whom there is no trust.’”

Lest you say

[and if you say] that only

when there is no trustworthiness in them

[when they are not trustworthy], when they are wicked,

are they called children,

but

when they serve

[when they worship]

idolatry, they are not called children.

For this reason,

come and hear,

a proof from the verse in Isaiah:

“And it says: ‘A seed of evildoers, children who deal corruptly,’”

and “those who deal corruptly” refers to idolatry, as it is stated [Deuteronomy 4:16], “Lest you deal corruptly and make for yourselves a graven image, etc.”

Lest you say

[and if you say] that only

“children who deal corruptly” are called

[they are called children], but

“excellent children” are not called [“excellent children” are not considered] children ever again.

For this reason,

for this reason

come and hear,

a proof from the verse in Hosea:

“And it shall be in the place where it was said to them: ‘You are not My people,’ it shall be said to them: ‘The children of the living God,’”

for through repentance they again come to be called “the children of the living God.”

Mishna:

Continuing from the preceding Mishna, the Mishna lists here details of the sacrificial service that apply to men but not to women.

Laying on of hands—

laying hands on the head of the offering before its slaughter. All animal offerings, whether obligatory or voluntary, require the laying on of hands, as it is stated [Leviticus 1:4], “And he shall lay his hand upon the head of the burnt offering,” and likewise [there, 3:2], “And he shall lay his hand upon the head of his offering,” with the exception of a firstborn animal, animal tithe, and the Paschal offering, which do not require the laying on of hands. Laying on of hands is performed only by the owners; that is, the owner of the offering lays his hands with all his strength upon the head of the animal while it is still alive.

And the waving—

waving the offering: The owners bring the sacrificial portions together with the breast and thigh in their hands, and a kohen places his hand beneath the hands of the owners and waves them—that is, he moves them back and forth and up and down—as it is stated with regard to peace offerings [Leviticus 7:30]: “The fat he shall bring upon the breast, that the breast may be waved as a wave offering before the Lord.”

And the presentations—

when one brings a meal offering, after placing it in a sacred vessel and putting oil and frankincense upon it, he brings it to the kohen, and the kohen brings it to the altar and presents it at the southwestern corner.

And the removals—

of the meal offerings.

And the burning—

the burning of the sacrificial portions.

And the nipping—

of the bird offering.

And the receiving—

of the blood of the offering from the animal’s neck.

And the sprinklings—

of the blood upon the altar.

All these

apply

only

to men and not to women,

as a woman does not perform the laying on of hands, does not wave, and does not present a meal offering. Even if she is a kohenet, the service is not valid when she presents a meal offering at the southwestern corner of the altar in the prescribed manner. Nor does she perform the removal, the burning, the nipping, or the receiving of the blood, and she does not sprinkle the blood of a bird sin offering.

Except for the meal offering of a sota and of a nazirite woman, which they wave

their meal offerings themselves, whether they are kohanot or Israelite women, since their meal offering requires waving by the owners.

Gemara: Laying on of hands: From where do we learn that a woman does not lay her hands upon the head of the offering?

It is written

As it is written

[Leviticus 1:2–4]:

“Speak to the children of Israel

etc.,

and he shall lay his hand

etc.” The word “children” is superfluous and is expounded to exclude: only

The word “children” is superfluous and is expounded to exclude: only

the sons of Israel lay hands—

but the daughters of Israel do not lay hands

even with offerings that they themselves bring.

Waving: From where do we learn that a woman does not wave? It is stated [Leviticus 7:29–30]:

Leviticus 7:29–30]:

“Speak to the children of Israel, etc., and he shall wave

etc.,” and they derive from this that only

the sons of Israel wave—

but the daughters of Israel do not wave.

Presentations: From where do we learn that a woman does not present a meal offering at the corner of the altar?

From where do we learn that a woman does not bring a meal offering to the corner of the altar?

As it is written

[Leviticus 6:7]:

“And this is the law of the meal offering: The sons of Aaron shall present it,”

the Torah excluded others, so that only

the sons of Aaron

present the meal offering—

but not the daughters of Aaron.

Removals: From where do we learn that a woman does not perform the removal?

From where do we learn that a woman does not take a handful?

As it is written

[Leviticus 2:2]:

“And he shall bring it to the sons of Aaron, and he shall remove

etc.,”

the Torah excluded others, so that only

the sons of Aaron

perform the removal—

but not the daughters of Aaron.

Burning: From where do we learn that a woman does not perform the burning?

From where do we learn that a woman does not burn the offering on the altar?

As it is written

[Leviticus 3:5]:

“And the sons of Aaron shall burn it

etc.,”

the Torah excluded others, so that only

the sons of Aaron

burn it—

but not the daughters of Aaron.

Nipping: From where do we learn that a woman does not perform the nipping?

From where do we learn that a woman does not perform the nipping of a bird offering?

As it is written

[Leviticus 1:15]:

“And he shall nip

etc.

and he shall burn

etc.,”

the nipping is juxtaposed with the burning: Just as the burning applies only to “the sons of Aaron,” and not to the daughters of Aaron, so too the nipping does not apply to women.

just as burning on the altar applies only to “the sons of Aaron,” and not to the daughters of Aaron, so too nipping does not apply to women.

Receiving: From where do we learn that a woman does not receive the blood?

From where do we learn that a woman does not receive the blood?

As it is written

[Leviticus 1:5]:

“And the sons of Aaron

the priests shall offer the blood.”