Kiddushin 36a — the Talmud in English

And we answer:

Isi holds:

the prohibition of

cutting and making incisions ![](pamud.bmp "

Exact page location")

is one, [

both srita and gedida mean doing it either by hand or with an instrument] and if so, it is necessary 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,

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

Because

he derives

by means of a

gzera shava, “bald spot” “bald spot,” from the sons of Aaron [

Leviticus 21:5],

just as there

in the passage concerning priests

women are exempt

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

so here too,

with regard to the prohibition of making a bald spot among Israel,

women are exempt.

And we challenge this:

And if we hold that, when the verse is written [

if we hold that what is written, “the sons of Aaron,” to exclude the daughters of Aaron, was stated]

with regard to the entire matter

mentioned in that passage,

it is that which is written.

If so,

let Scripture be silent concerning it

with regard to the

gzera shava concerning Israel,

and let it come

by means of a kal va-chomer.

And I would say [

and I would say this kal va-chomer]:

And if priests, concerning whom Scripture increased additional mitzvot,

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

“the sons of Aaron”—

and not the daughters of Aaron,

if so,

Israel,

concerning whom Scripture did not increase so many mitzvot,

all the more so

their women were excluded from the prohibition of making a bald spot.

And we answer:

Were it not

that the Torah would have informed us of the

gzera shava, we would have said [

we would have said that what is written in the passage concerning priests, “the sons of Aaron,” to exclude the daughters of Aaron, was stated only with regard to the prohibition of impurity that is written immediately afterward, and not with regard to the prohibition of making a bald spot that is written several verses later [in verse 5], since Scripture]

interrupted

the

matter

in the meantime, such as “to her he may become impure” [Leviticus 21:3], which is written in the meantime.

And we challenge this:

Now [

now that we expound a gzera shava],

let us also say [

let us also say that Scripture]

interrupted the matter

between the exclusion of “the sons of Aaron,” and not the daughters of Aaron, and the prohibition of making a bald spot, and the exclusion was stated only with regard to the prohibition for priests to become impure through the dead, and not with regard to the prohibition of making a bald spot.

And if because of the gzera shava

that was written in order to learn from it to exclude women from the prohibition of making a bald spot, one can say that the gzera shava

is needed [

it is needed] for another exposition.

For that which was taught: “He shall not make a bald spot”—

could it be that even if he made four or five bald spots, he should be liable only for one?

The verse says: “bald spot.”

The word “bald spot” is superfluous,

to

teach that he

is liable for each and every one.

“On their heads”—what does it teach [

what do we learn from the word “on their heads”] stated in the passage concerning priests?

Since it was said

with regard to Israel [Deuteronomy 14:1]:

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

I would

be able

to say that

he 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 of making a bald spot?

The verse says:

in the passage concerning priests

“on their heads,” to make one liable

for a bald spot

on

every

part of the head, just as between the eyes.

And I have

learned from “on their heads” to prohibit making a bald spot over the entire head, just as between the eyes,

only

among

priests, concerning whom Scripture increased additional mitzvot; from where do we derive it for Israel,

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

For this the gzera shava is needed, for

it is stated here

in the passage concerning priests

“bald spot,” and it is stated there

with regard to Israel

“bald spot,”

to equate the prohibition of making a bald spot stated with regard to priests with the prohibition of making a bald spot stated with regard to Israel.

Just as here,

with regard to priests,

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

every

part of the head, just as

a bald spot

between the eyes, so too there,

with regard to Israel,

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

every

part of the head, just as between the eyes; and just as there,

with regard to Israel, the prohibition of making a bald spot is

for the dead,

as it is written, “for the dead,”

so here too,

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

for the dead!

And since the gzera shava is already needed, how do they learn from it to exclude women from the prohibition of making a bald spot?

And we answer: If the gzera shava came to teach us only this matter alone,

if so,

it would have been sufficient if

Scripture had written

in both places

“bald.”

What is the meaning [

what is the meaning] of the expression

“bald spot”

that was written? It is as though an additional gzera shava had been written.

You can infer from it

to learn

two things [

two teachings from the gzera shava: both the teaching of the beraita and the exclusion of women from the prohibition of making a bald spot.

Rava said: This is the reason for Isi,

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

Because

he derives [

he learns] a gzera shava,

“between your eyes,” from phylacteries; just as there

with regard to phylacteries

women are exempt, so here too,

with regard to the prohibition of making a bald spot,

women are exempt.

And Rava, what is the reason that he did not say like Abaye,

to learn from the gzera shava of “bald spot” from the passage concerning priests that women are exempt?

And we answer: The fact that it was not written

“bald”

but

“bald spot” is not meaningful to him;

Rava does not consider it precise enough to learn from this fact an additional teaching from the gzera shava that women are exempt.

And Abaye, what is the reason that he did not say like Rava,

to learn from the gzera shava of “between your eyes” from phylacteries that women are exempt?

And we answer:

He could say to you,

Abaye:

Phylacteries themselves [

themselves]

are learned for it from here [

they are learned by this gzera shava] of “between your eyes,”

just as there,

with regard to the prohibition of making a bald spot,

the place where a bald spot is made

is

at the height of the head,

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

so too here,

with regard to phylacteries,

the place of laying them

is

at the height of the head,

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

And therefore one cannot learn by this gzera shava to exclude women from the prohibition of making a bald spot.

And we challenge this:

And both according to Abaye and according to Rava,

who do not learn from “You are sons of the Lord your God” [Deuteronomy 14:1–2] to exclude women from the prohibition of making a bald spot, but rather from other teachings,

what do they expound from this “You are sons”?

And we answer:

This “

you are sons”

is needed [

needed]

for that which was taught:

“You are sons of the Lord your God.”

When you conduct yourselves in the manner of sons—

you are called sons

of the Lord. But when

you do not conduct yourselves in the manner of sons—

you are not called sons

of the Lord, for everything depends on our conduct,

the words of Rabbi Judah.

Rabbi Meir says: Whether in this way or in that way, you are called sons,

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

As it is stated: [

Jeremiah 4:22]

“They are foolish sons,” and it says: [

Deuteronomy 32:20]

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

Isaiah 1:4]

“Offspring of evildoers, destructive sons,” and it says: [

Hosea 2:1]

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

And we examine it:

What is the meaning of “and it says”?

Why did Rabbi Meir need to bring proof from additional verses, and did not suffice with bringing proof from one verse?

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

if you should say [

if you say]

foolish ones [

foolish, stupid ones], who possess nothing but foolishness,

are what are called [

who are called]

sons,

but when they are evildoers,

when there is no

trustworthiness in them [

when there is no trust in them],

they are not called sons.

For this,

come and hear,

proof from the verse in Deuteronomy,

“And sons in whom there is no trust.”

And if you should say [

and if you say] only

when there is no trustworthiness in them [

when there is no trust in them], when they are evildoers,

are they called sons,

but

when they serve [

when they serve]

idolatry, they are not called sons.

For this,

come and hear,

proof from the verse in Isaiah,

“And offspring of evildoers, destructive sons,”

and “destructive” means idolatry, as it is stated [Deuteronomy 4:16], “lest you act corruptly and make for yourselves a graven image, etc.”

And if you should say [

and if you say] only

“destructive sons” are those who are called [

they are those who are called sons], but

“excellent sons” are not called [

“excellent sons” are not considered] sons ever again.

For this,

come and hear,

proof from the verse in Hosea,

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

for through repentance they return to being called “sons of the living God.”

Mishna:

Following the preceding Mishna, here the Mishna enumerates details of the sacrificial procedure that apply to men and not to women.

Laying on of hands—

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

And waving—

waving the offering, that is, the owners bring the portions designated for burning together with the breast and the thigh in their hands, and a priest places his hand beneath the hands of the owners and waves, meaning he moves it forward and backward, and raises and lowers it, as it is stated concerning peace offerings [Leviticus 7:30]: “The fat he shall bring with the breast; the breast, to wave it as a waving before the Lord.”

And presenting—

when one who brings a meal offering, after placing it in a service vessel and placing oil and frankincense upon it, brings it to the priest, and the priest brings it to the altar and presents it at the southwest corner.

And taking handfuls—

of the meal offerings.

And burning—

the portions designated for burning.

And pinching—

of the bird offering.

And receiving—

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

And sprinkling—

of the blood upon the altar.

All these

apply

only

to men and not to women,

for a woman does not perform laying on of hands, does not wave, and does not present a meal offering; and even if she is a priestess, the service is not valid when she presents a meal offering at the southwest corner of the altar in its prescribed manner; and she does not take a handful, burn, pinch, receive blood, or sprinkle the blood of a bird sin offering.

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

their meal offerings themselves, both priestesses and Israelite women, for 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?

For it is written [

Leviticus 1:2–4]:

“Speak to the sons of Israel

etc.

and he shall lay his hand

etc.”

And “sons” is superfluous, to expound and exclude, so that only

the sons of Israel lay their hands—

and the daughters of Israel do not lay their hands

even for offerings that they themselves bring.

Waving:

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

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

etc.,” and they expound from this that only

the sons of Israel wave—

and the daughters of Israel do not wave.

Presenting:

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

For it is written [

Leviticus 6:7]:

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

the Torah excluded, so that only

the sons of Aaron

present the meal offering—

and not the daughters of Aaron.

Taking handfuls:

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

For it is written [

Leviticus 2:2]:

“And he shall bring it to the sons of Aaron, and he shall take a handful

etc.”

The Torah excluded, so that only

the sons of Aaron

take handfuls—

and not the daughters of Aaron.

Burning:

From where do we learn that a woman does not burn?

For it is written [

Leviticus 3:5]:

“And the sons of Aaron shall burn it

etc.”

The Torah excluded, so that only

the sons of Aaron

burn—

and not the daughters of Aaron.

Pinching:

From where do we learn that a woman does not pinch?

For it is written [

Leviticus 1:15]:

“And he shall pinch

etc.

and he shall burn

etc.

,” pinching was equated with burning;

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

Receiving:

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

For it is written [

Leviticus 1:5]:

“And the sons of Aaron shall bring

the priests, the blood.”