Kiddushin 36b — the Talmud in English

And the Master said: ![](pamud.bmp "

precise page location")

“And they shall bring it” —

this is the receiving of the blood,

and it is written, “the sons of Aaron”; the Torah excluded [others], that only the sons of Aaron receive the blood, and not the daughters of Aaron:

We learned in the Mishna:

“and the sprinklings.”

And we examined it:

The sprinkling of where?

Of which sprinkling is the Mishna speaking?

If

the intention of the Mishna is the sprinkling of the blood

of the red heifer,

behold,

“Elazar” is written in it,

in the passage, and even the other kohanim are disqualified for it; all the more so, women are disqualified!

If

the intention of the Mishna is the sprinkling of the blood

inside,

such as the sprinkling upon the curtain and the golden altar, which are stated regarding the bull of the anointed kohen and the bull for the unwitting decision of the community, behold,

“the anointed kohen”

[Leviticus 4:5]

is written in it,

to exclude ordinary kohanim; all the more so, women.

Rather,

the intention of the Mishna is

the sprinkling of a bird,

as it is written concerning 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.

For it follows

[that it is learned]

by a kal va-chomer from

the casting of the blood of the burnt-offering of a

flock animal,

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

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

since slaughter is valid when performed by a non-kohen, as it is written [there, verse 5], “And he shall slaughter the young bull, and the sons of Aaron shall bring it” — for only from the receiving onward is there a priestly mitzva; this teaches concerning slaughter that it is valid when performed by a non-kohen — and nevertheless

the verse designated for it

the

kohen for its sprinkling,

as it is stated, “And the sons of Aaron shall cast it,” to exclude a kohenet.

If so, a sin-offering of

a bird, 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 one should be designated for it

a kohen

for its sprinkling,

and from here also that the sprinkling of the blood of the bird sin-offering is only by a kohen, and not by a kohenet:

We learned in the Mishna:

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

Rabbi Eliezer said to Rabbi Yoshiya of his generation

[who was an amora of his stature, and not Rabbi Yoshiya the elder, the disputant of Rabbi Yonatan, who was still alive in the time of Rabbi Elazar].

And this is what he said to him:

“Do not sit upon your feet until you have said this teaching to me”

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

From where

is it learned

that the meal-offering of a sotah requires waving?

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

“From where do we know this?”

But

in the body

of the passage itself

it is written

[Numbers 5:25]:

“And he shall wave the meal-offering”!

Rather,

this is what he asked him:

“Waving by the owners — from where do we know it,”

that the sotah herself should wave it? Perhaps Scripture spoke of the kohen, as it is stated [there]: “And the kohen shall take from the woman’s hand”?

And he answers:

It follows

[it is learned] by a

verbal analogy, “hand” “hand,”

from the peace-offerings; it is written here

in the meal-offering of a sotah [Numbers 5:25]:

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

in the peace-offerings [Leviticus 7:30]:

“His hands shall bring it”;

from here, they compare the waving of the meal-offering of a sotah to the waving of the peace-offerings.

Just as here,

in the meal-offering of a sotah,

a kohen

waves,

so there,

in the peace-offerings,

a kohen

waves.

Just as there,

in the peace-offerings,

the owners

wave,

so here,

in the meal-offering of a sotah,

the owners

wave.

How is this [carried out]?

Both the owners and the kohen wave?

The kohen places his hand beneath the hand of the owners and waves

together with the owners.

From here, the woman waves the meal-offering of a sotah, for she is the owner.

We have found

[we have found] regarding a

sotah

that the woman waves the meal-offering.

From where do we know this concerning a nazirite woman,

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

It follows

[it is learned] by a

verbal analogy, “palm” “palm,” from the sotah,

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

Mishna:

Every mitzva that is dependent upon the Land,

that is, a mitzva concerning the land, such as the release of the land in the Sabbatical year and in the Jubilee, or concerning produce of the land, such as the separation of 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 land, but rather is imposed upon a person’s body, such as observance of Shabbat and donning tefillin,

is practiced both in the Land and outside the Land.