Sotah 23a (כג.) — the Talmud in English

a.

A woman who says: “I am impure to you”:

she is not given to drink, since she admitted it, and her meal-offering is burned.

b.

And when witnesses came to her that she was impure,

she is not given to drink, and her meal-offering is burned.

c.

And a woman who says, “I will not drink”

before the scroll was erased, she is not given to drink and her meal-offering is burned. d.

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

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

And her husband had intercourse with her on the way,

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

And all

the women

married to kohanim

have

their meal-offerings—

meaning the remnants of their meal-offerings, whether they were sota meal-offerings or voluntary meal-offerings —

burned,

and even though the handful was sacrificed in accordance with its law and there was no disqualification in the meal-offering, the remnants are burned in the ash area.

z.

An Israelite woman who married a kohen: her meal-offering is burned.

And a kohenet

a daughter of a kohen

who married an Israelite,

her meal-offering is eaten,

and her meal-offering does not have the status of a kohen’s meal-offering, which is entirely burned on the altar, as it is stated: “Every meal-offering of a kohen shall be entirely burned; it shall not be eaten.”

What is the difference between a kohen and a kohenet

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

a.

The meal-offering of a kohenet

a daughter of a kohen who is unmarried

is eaten—

but

if

a kohen’s meal-offering is not eaten,

rather, it is entirely burned on the altar.

b.

A kohenet

who had intercourse with one forbidden to her is

disqualified

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

but

if

a kohen

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

not

becoming

disqualified.

c.

A kohenet becomes impure through contact with the dead—

but a kohen may not become impure through contact with the dead.

d.

A kohen eats offerings of the highest sanctity—

but a kohenet does not eat offerings of the highest sanctity.

What is the difference between a man and a woman,

even when they are Israelites?—

a.

A man,

when he is afflicted with tzara’at,

lets his hair grow wild and rends his garments,

as it is stated [Leviticus 13:45]: “And the person with tzara’at in whom the affliction is found, his garments shall be rent [torn] and his head shall be unkempt [with overgrown hair]”—

but a woman

afflicted with tzara’at

does not let her hair grow wild and rend her garments.

b.

A man imposes nazirite status on his son,

who is a minor,

as a nazir —

but a woman does not impose nazirite status

on

her son as a nazir.

c.

A man shaves

on account of his father’s nazirite status,

meaning that 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,

but a woman does not shave on account of her father’s nazirite status.

d.

The man

betroths his daughter,

meaning that he accepts betrothal for his minor daughter without her knowledge,

but a woman does not betroth her daughter.

e.

A man sells his daughter,

the minor,

as a Hebrew maidservant,

but 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 has been executed by the court, as the Torah states [Deuteronomy 21:22]: “If a man has committed a sin deserving the judgment of death, and he is put to death, and you hang him on a tree”—

but a woman is not hanged.

and a woman is not hanged.

h.

A man is sold

as a slave

for his theft

when he has nothing with which to pay,

but a woman is not sold for her theft.

Gemara:

The Sages taught:

All women married into the kehuna have their meal-offerings burned—

how so?

A kohenet, a Levite woman, or an Israelite woman who married a kohen: Her meal-offering is not eaten

like an ordinary Israelite meal-offering—

because he has a share in it,

as he offers it from his own resources, and he is a kohen, whose meal-offering is entirely burned.

And

it also

does not ascend entirely

like a koen’s meal offering,

because she has a share in it,

since the meal offering is brought for her atonement, and she is in fact treated as an Israelite.

Rather—

the handful is sacrificed separately, and the remainder is sacrificed separately,

after the handful has been sacrificed.

And we raise an objection: But the Torah says [Leviticus 2:11], “For any leaven and any honey you shall not burn from it as a fire-offering to the Lord.” It should have said, “You shall not burn a fire-offering to the Lord.”

Therefore, the Torah added the word “from it” in order to expound the end of the verse as an independent novel teaching:

“You shall not burn from it”—any offering from which something has already ascended “from it” to the Lord, you shall not burn any more of it! The verse comes to teach that with regard to any offering from which you have already given its prescribed portion as a fire-offering to the Lord [such as the sacrificial portions of an offering, or the handful of a meal offering], the part of the offering that remains may not be burned to the Lord—

And since it is possible that we should follow the portion designated for the fire, with the result that the burning of the handful was performed properly,

the following applies here

[I apply this verse to the remainder] of the meal offering from which a handful was burned: “

Anything from which [a portion] is [offered] on the fires is subject to the prohibition, ‘You shall not burn’,”

and it is impossible to burn the remainder!?

Said

Rabbi Yehuda, son of

Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi: We raise it

[he raises] the remainder onto the altar

for the sake of wood.

That is, he stipulates and says as follows:

If the remainder is fit to be burned [because the meal offering was not fit to have a handful taken from it, in accordance with the law of “a koen’s meal offering”], I am burning the remainder for the sake of burning.

[For the handful-taking that was performed neither enhances nor detracts from it.]

But if the meal offering was fit to have a handful taken from it, and this is its remainder, I raise this remainder onto the altar and burn it 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 onto the altar anything from which a portion designated as a fire-offering to the Lord is given, “for the sake of wood”:

As it was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Eliezer says:

Since the verse says, “For any leaven and any honey you shall not burn from it as a fire-offering to the Lord. As an offering of first fruits you shall bring them to the Lord, but they shall not ascend upon the altar for a pleasing aroma,” the expression

“for a pleasing aroma”

you may not raise

anything from which a portion designated for the fires is given

for the sake of a pleasing aroma,

but you may raise it for the sake of wood.

And we raise an objection:

This works well according to Rabbi Eliezer, who holds this view,

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

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

and prohibit raising the remainder for the sake of wood,

what can be said?

What should be done with the remainder? It cannot be burned, nor can it be raised for the sake of wood!?

And we answer:

They should be dealt with

[the remainder]

a

s

Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon,

said should be done with the remainder of a koen’s sinner’s meal offering!

As it was taught in a beraita:

It is stated in the portion of Leviticus that there are three cases in which a sinner becomes liable to an offering of “ascending and descending,” that is, according to the sinner’s means:

The first is one who was administered an oath of testimony [to come and testify on behalf of his fellow, but falsely denied it and said that he knew of no testimony concerning him].

The second is one who swore an oath of utterance and violated it, or failed to keep his oath.

The third is one who violated the prohibition concerning ritual impurity of the Temple and its sacred offerings [Leviticus 5:11].

And this is what is stated there: “But if his means do not suffice for two turtledoves or two young pigeons, then he shall bring as his offering for the sin that he committed a tenth of an ephah of fine flour for a sin offering” [and this is the sinner’s meal offering, which is brought by one who is in “extreme poverty”]; and there, verse 13: “The koen shall make atonement for him for the sin that he committed in any one of these matters, and it shall be forgiven him; and it shall belong to the koen, like the meal offering.”

And according to the Rabbis, the verse “It shall belong to the koen, like the meal offering” comes to juxtapose the koen’s obligatory meal offering [the sinner’s meal offering] with his voluntary meal offering: Just as his voluntary meal offering is not subject to the taking of a handful and is not eaten, but is entirely burned, so too his obligatory meal offering is entirely burned to the Lord.

Rabbi Shimon says: Is it stated, “It shall belong to the koen like his meal offering,” so that you should juxtapose his obligatory meal offering with his own voluntary meal offering? But it says only, “It shall belong to the koen, like the meal offering”! Rather, the verse says as follows: A koen’s sinner’s meal offering is like an Israelite’s sinner’s meal offering: Just as the Israelite’s is subject to the taking of a handful, so too the koen’s is subject to the taking of a handful.

Lest you say: Just as an Israelite’s sinner’s meal offering is subject to the taking of a handful and its remainder is eaten, so too a koen’s sinner’s meal offering is subject to the taking of a handful and its remainder is eaten—

Therefore, the verse states: “To the koen, like the meal offering”: To the koen [for the koen’s service—the taking of the handful], it is like an Israelite’s meal offering, but not for the fires, like a meal offering! How so? The handful is sacrificed separately, and the remainder is sacrificed separately.

And Rabbi Shimon does not hold that “anything from which a portion is offered on the fires is subject to the prohibition, ‘You shall not burn.’”

Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, says:

It is stated with regard to a koen’s meal offering: “And every meal offering of a koen shall be entirely burned; it shall not be eaten.”

Therefore, the verse says, “It shall be entirely burned,” and then repeats, “It shall not be eaten,” to teach: A koen’s voluntary offering “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 handful, and

the handful is sacrificed separately, while the remainder is scattered

to be destroyed

at the ash heap,

and it is not eaten.