Sotah 23a — the Talmud in English

a.

The woman who says: “I am impure to you”.

They do not give her to drink, since she has admitted it, and her meal-offering is burned.

b.

And witnesses came to her that she is impure,

they do not give her to drink, and her meal-offering is burned.

c.

And the one who says: “I will not drink”

before the scroll was erased, they do not give her to drink and her meal-offering is burned. d.

And her husband does not wish to give her to drink,

for he changed his mind about giving her to drink after the meal-offering had been sanctified in the vessel. e.

And her husband had relations with her on the way,

that is, it became known after the meal-offering had been sanctified in the vessel that her husband had relations with her on the way to the Temple courtyard; and if so, “he is not free of iniquity,” and he cannot give his wife to drink. f.

And all

the women

married to priests

their

meal-offerings—

that is, the remnants of their meal-offerings, whether they were sota meal-offerings or freewill meal-offerings —

are burned,

even though the handful was sacrificed according to its law and there was no disqualification in the meal-offering; nevertheless, the remnants are burned in the ash-place.

z.

An Israelite woman who married a priest—her meal-offering is burned.

And a priest’s daughter [

daughter of a priest ]

who married an Israelite,

her meal-offering is eaten,

and the law of her meal-offering is not like the law of a priest’s meal-offering, which is wholly burned upon the altar, as it is stated: “And every meal-offering of a priest shall be wholly burned; it shall not be eaten.”

What is the difference between a priest and a priest’s daughter [daughter of a priest; and the reason for all of them is explained in the Gemara]?

a daughter of a kohen; and the reason for all of these distinctions is explained in the Gemara?—

a.

A priest’s daughter’s meal-offering [

daughter of a priest who is unmarried ]

is eaten—

and

if

a priest’s meal-offering were not eaten,

but were wholly burned upon the altar.

b.

A priest’s daughter

who had relations with one forbidden to her, she is

disqualified

from teruma [which she is permitted to eat while in her priestly father’s household], and from marrying a priest—

and

if

a priest, if he married one of the women disqualified for the priesthood,

marries one of the women disqualified from marrying into the kehuna, he is

is not

he

disqualified.

В.

c.

A priest’s daughter becomes impure for the dead—

and a priest does not become impure for the dead.

d.

A priest eats of the most holy sacrifices—

and a priest’s daughter does not eat of the most holy sacrifices.

What is the difference between a man and a woman,

even Israelites?—

a.

A man,

when he is afflicted with tzaraat, is

uncovering and rending,

as it is stated [Leviticus 13:45]: “And the person afflicted with tzaraat, in whom the plague is, his garments shall be rent [torn] and his head shall be uncovered [with overgrown hair]”

; but a woman

afflicted with tzaraat

does not uncover and rend.

b.

A man imposes nazirite status upon his son,

the minor,

as a nazir —

and a woman does not impose nazirite status upon

her

son as a nazir.

В.

c.

A man shaves

on his father’s nazirite status,

for if his deceased father had set aside money for the sacrifices of his nazirite status, his son, who is a nazir, uses it for the sacrifices of his own nazirite status,

and a woman does not shave on her father’s nazirite status.

d.

d.

A man betroths his daughter,

receiving the betrothal of his minor daughter without her knowledge,

and a woman does not betroth her daughter.

e.

A man sells his daughter,

the minor,

to be a Hebrew maidservant,

and a woman does not sell her daughter.

f.

A man is stoned,

when he is

naked, but a woman is not stoned naked.

g.

A man is hanged,

after he was put to death by the court, as the Torah said [Deuteronomy 21:22]: “And when there is in a man a sin whose judgment is death, and he is put to death, and you hang him on a tree”

—

and a woman is not hanged.

h.

A man is sold

as a slave

for his theft

when he has nothing with which to repay,

but a woman is not sold for her theft.

Gemara:

The Sages taught:

All women married into the priesthood— their meal-offerings are burned—

how so?

A priest’s daughter, a Levite woman, and an Israelite woman who married a priest: her meal-offering is not eaten,

like an ordinary Israelite meal-offering—

because he has a share in it,

for he sacrifices it from his own property, and he is a priest, whose meal-offering is wholly burned.

And

it also

is not entirely burned

like the meal-offering of a koen,

because she has a share in it,

for the meal-offering came for her atonement, and she is, after all, subject to the law of an Israelite.

Rather—

the kometz is offered by itself, and the sherayim are offered by themselves,

after the kometz has been offered.

And we raise an objection: Yet the Torah said [Leviticus 2:11]: “For every leavening and every honey you shall not burn from it an offering made by fire to Hashem.” And it should have said: “You shall not burn an offering made by fire to Hashem.”

And therefore the Torah added and said “from it,” in order to expound the end of the verse as an independent innovation:

“You shall not burn from it”—any offering that has already gone up “from it” to Hashem, you shall not burn any more from it! And the verse came to teach that every offering from which you have already given its prescribed portion as an offering made by fire to Hashem [such as the portions burned on the altar in an offering, and the kometz in a meal-offering], behold, whatever remains of the offering, you shall not burn it to Hashem—

And since it is possible that we should follow the woman’s share, and it turns out that the burning of the kometz was in accordance with the law, behold,

it is called here

[I apply to the sherayim] of the meal-offering from which a kometz was burned]:

“Everything from which there is [a portion] for the fires is subject to ‘you shall not burn’”,

and it is impossible to burn them!?

He said:

he explained,

Rabbi Yehuda, son of Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi: that he raises them

[he raises the sherayim] upon the altar

for the sake of wood.

That is, he makes a stipulation and says as follows:

If the sherayim are fit to be burned [because the meal-offering was not fit to have a kometz taken from it, as is the law of “the meal-offering of a koen”], behold, I burn the sherayim for the purpose of burning.

[For the taking of the kometz that was performed neither adds nor detracts].

But if the meal-offering was fit to have a kometz taken from it, and these are its remnants, behold, I raise these sherayim upon the altar and burn them there like the other wood of the arrangement, and not as the burning of an offering—

and

in accordance with Rabbi Eliezer,

who holds that it is permitted to raise upon the altar “everything from which there is an offering made by fire to Hashem,” for the sake of “wood”:

For it was taught: Rabbi Eliezer says:

Since the verse said, “For every leavening and every honey you shall not burn from it an offering made by fire to Hashem. As an offering of first fruits you shall bring them to Hashem, but upon the altar they shall not go up for a pleasing fragrance,” it follows that the verse’s statement “for a pleasing fragrance” also applies to “you shall not burn from it an offering made by fire to Hashem,” to teach: only

“for a pleasing fragrance”

may you not raise

everything from which there is a portion for the fires,

but you may raise it for the sake of wood.

but you may raise it for the sake of wood.

And we raise an objection:

This works according to Rabbi Eliezer, who holds this reasoning

that it is permitted to raise them upon the altar for the sake of wood.

But according to the Rabbis, who do not hold this reasoning,

and prohibit raising the sherayim for the sake of wood,

what is there to say?

What should he do with the sherayim? After all, he can neither burn them nor raise them for the sake of wood!?

And we answer:

they should be dealt with

[the sherayim]

as

he said,

Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon,

to do with the sherayim of the meal-offering of a sinner of a koen!

For it was taught:

It is stated in the section of Leviticus that there are three matters in which the sinner becomes obligated in an “ascending and descending” offering, that is, according to the ability of the sinner:

The first: one who was adjured with the oath of testimony [to come and testify for the benefit of his fellow, but falsely denied it and said that he knew no testimony concerning him].

The second: one who swore an oath of utterance and lied in it, or did not stand by his oath.

And the third: one who transgressed with regard to the impurity of the Sanctuary and its sacred things [Leviticus 5:11].

And so it is stated there: “But if his hand cannot afford two turtledoves or two young doves, then he shall bring his offering for the sin that he committed, a tenth of an ephah of fine flour for a sin-offering” [and this is the meal-offering of a sinner that comes in “extreme poverty”]; and there, verse 13: “And the koen shall atone for him, for his sin that he committed from one of these, and it shall be forgiven him, and it shall belong to the koen like the meal-offering.”

And according to the Sages, the verse “and it shall belong to the koen like the meal-offering” came to compare the obligatory meal-offering of a koen [the meal-offering of a sinner] to his voluntary meal-offering: just as his voluntary meal-offering is neither subject to the taking of a kometz nor eaten, but goes up entirely burned, so too his obligatory meal-offering is entirely burned to Hashem.

Rabbi Shimon says: Is it stated, “and it shall belong to the koen like his meal-offering,” so that you compare his obligatory meal-offering to his own voluntary meal-offering? It was surely stated only, “and it shall belong to the koen like the meal-offering”! Rather, the verse said as follows: The meal-offering of a sinner of a koen is like the meal-offering of a sinner of an Israelite: just as that of an Israelite is subject to the taking of a kometz, so too that of a koen is subject to the taking of a kometz.

Lest you say: Just as the meal-offering of a sinner of an Israelite is subject to the taking of a kometz and its remnants are eaten, so too the meal-offering of a sinner of a koen is subject to the taking of a kometz and its remnants are eaten?

Therefore the verse says: “To the koen like the meal-offering”: To the koen [for the service of a koen—for the taking of the kometz] it is like the meal-offering of an Israelite, but not for the fires like the meal-offering! How so?—The kometz is offered by itself, and the sherayim are offered by themselves.

And Rabbi Shimon does not hold that “everything from which there is a portion for the fires is subject to ‘you shall not burn.’”

Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, says:

It is stated regarding the meal-offering of a koen: “And every meal-offering of a koen shall be entirely burned; it shall not be eaten.”

And therefore the verse said “it shall be entirely burned,” and then repeated and said “it shall not be eaten,” in order to teach: the voluntary offering of a koen “shall be entirely burned” upon the altar, whereas his obligatory meal-offering “shall not be eaten”!

How so?—It is subject to the taking of a kometz, and

the kometz is offered by itself, and the sherayim are scattered

to be lost

upon the ash heap,

and they are not eaten.