Kiddushin 36b (לו:) — the Talmud in English

And the Master said

“And he shall offer it”—

this is the receiving of the blood,

and it is written, “the sons of Aaron”; the Torah thereby excluded women, teaching that only the sons of Aaron may receive the blood, but not the daughters of Aaron:

We learned in the Mishna:

“and the sprinklings”:

And we raised a question about this:

The sprinkling in which case?

With regard to which sprinkling is the Mishna speaking?

If

the Mishna is referring to the sprinkling of the blood

of the red heifer,

then

“Elazar” is written in its passage;

and even other kohanim are disqualified from performing it, all the more so women are disqualified!

If

the Mishna is referring to the sprinkling of the blood

inside,

such as the sprinkling on the Curtain and on the golden altar stated with regard to the bull of the anointed kohen and the bull for an unwitting communal transgression, then

“the anointed kohen”

Leviticus 4:5]

is written in its passage,

excluding ordinary kohanim, and all the more so women.

Rather,

the Mishna is referring to

the sprinkling of the blood of a bird-offering,

as it is written with regard to the bird sin-offering [Leviticus 5:9], “And he shall sprinkle from the blood of the sin-offering”; and in this case the Mishna needed to teach us that women are disqualified.

This is derived

by inference]

by a kal va-chomer from

the blood-throwing of the burnt-offering of a

flock animal,

about which it is written [Leviticus 1:11], “And the sons of Aaron shall throw its blood”:

And if with regard to a flock animal, for which a kohen was not designated for its slaughter,

as slaughter is valid when performed by a non-kohen, as it is written [there, verse 5], “And he shall slaughter the bull, and the sons of Aaron shall offer it”—teaching that the mitzva of the kehuna begins only with receiving the blood and thereafter, which teaches that slaughter is valid when performed by a non-kohen—nevertheless,

the verse designated

a

kohen for its sprinkling,

as it is stated, “And the sons of Aaron shall throw its blood,” excluding a female kohen.

If so, with regard to the bird sin-offering,

for which a kohen was designated for its pinching,

as it is written [there, verse 15], “And the kohen shall bring it to the altar and pinch its head”—

is it not logical that a kohen should be designated for

its

sprinkling,

and from here as well, the sprinkling of the blood of the bird sin-offering is performed only by a male kohen, but not by a female kohen:

We learned in the Mishna:

“Except for the meal-offering of a sota and the meal-offering of a nazirite.”

Rabbi Eliezer said to Rabbi Yoshiyya of his generation

who was an amora of his generation, like him; and this is not Rabbi Yoshiyya the Elder, the disputant of Rabbi Yonatan, who was still alive in the time of Rabbi Elazar].

And he said to him:

“Do not sit down until you have told me this teaching”

do not sit until you explain this statement to me]:

From where

is it derived

that the meal-offering of a sota requires a wave offering?

And we raise an objection: Did Rabbi Eliezer ask Rabbi Yoshiyya

“From where do we know this?”

But

in the body

of the passage there

it is written

Numbers 5:25]:

“And he shall wave the meal-offering”!

Rather,

this is what he asked him:

“From where do we know that the wave offering is performed by the owner,”

that the sota herself waves it? Perhaps the verse is speaking of the kohen, as it is stated [there]: “And the kohen shall take from the woman’s hand”?

And he answers:

This is derived

by a gzera shava]

from “hand” and “hand,”

from the peace-offerings; it is written here,

with regard to the meal-offering of a sota [Numbers 5:25]:

“And the kohen shall take from the woman’s hand,” and it is written there,

with regard to the peace-offerings [Leviticus 7:30]:

“His hands shall bring it,”

from here we compare the wave offering of the meal-offering of a sota to the wave offering of the peace-offerings.

Just as here,

with regard to the meal-offering of a sota, a

kohen

waves it,

so too there,

with regard to the peace-offerings, a

kohen

waves it.

Just as there,

with regard to the peace-offerings, the

owners

wave it,

so too here,

with regard to the meal-offering of a sota, the

owners

wave it.

How is this accomplished,

that both the owners and the kohen wave it?

The kohen places his hand beneath the hand of the owner and waves it

together with the owner.

From here it follows that the woman waves the meal-offering of a sota, since she is the owner.

We have found

that we find] with regard to

a sota

that the woman waves the meal-offering.

From where do we know with regard to a nazirite

that the woman waves the foreleg, the loaf, and the wafer of her nazirite offering?

This is derived

by means of a gzera shava]

from “palm” and “palm,” from the sota;

for in the passage concerning a sota it is written [Numbers 5:18], “And he shall place it upon her palms,” and in the passage concerning a nazirite it is written [Numbers 6:19], “And he shall place it upon the palms of the nazirite.” From here it follows that the owners wave it, and the law of a male nazirite and a female nazirite is the same, as it is stated at the beginning of the passage: “When a man or woman shall clearly utter a nazirite vow” .

Mishna:

Any mitzva that is dependent upon the Land,

that is, a mitzva concerning the soil, such as leaving the soil fallow during the Sabbatical year and the Jubilee, or concerning produce of the soil, such as separating terumot and tithes,

is practiced only in the Land

of Israel, and not outside the Land.

And

a mitzva

that is not dependent upon the Land,

that does not concern the soil but is incumbent upon a person’s body, such as observing Shabbat and putting on tefillin,

is practiced both in the Land and outside the Land.