Sotah 23b (כג:) — the Talmud in English

And

even here, with the meal-offering of a woman married to a

kohen, even the Rabbis do not disagree with Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon in the case of a sinner’s meal-offering, and say that it is entirely burned on the altar; all this applies

only to a sinner’s meal-offering brought by kohanim, as

according to the Rabbis, it is entirely

fit for burning on the altar,

it is

and therefore its law is that it is entirely burned, like the freewill meal-offering of a kohen.

But in this case,

with regard to the meal-offering of a woman married to a kohen, whose remainder is not fit to be burned because of the woman’s portion, while burning it on the altar because of the man’s portion and stipulating that it is being offered for the sake of wood is impossible, because of the principle: “Whatever is offered upon the fires may not be burned”—

even the Rabbis agree

that the remainder is scattered over the ash heap.

We learned in the Mishna:

An Israelite woman who is married

and so on; the meal-offering of a female kohen is eaten, but the meal-offering of a kohen is not eaten:

And we explain:

What is the reason?

Because

the verse says [Leviticus 6:16]: “Every meal-offering of a kohen shall be entirely burned; it shall not be eaten.”

(Leviticus 6:16): “Every meal-offering of a koen shall be entirely burned; it shall not be eaten.”

“Every meal-offering of a koen shall be entirely burned; it shall not be eaten.”

We learn from here:

“Kohen”

but not a female kohen.

We learned in the Mishna:

A female kohen becomes disqualified, but a kohen does not become disqualified:

And we explain:

From where do we derive this?

Because

the verse says [Leviticus 21:15], concerning a High Priest who marries women forbidden to him: “He shall not profane his offspring among his people,”

after the verse states: “A widow, a divorcee, a profaned woman, or a prostitute—these he shall not take. Rather, he shall take a virgin from among his people as a wife.”

“And he shall not profane his offspring among his people.”

The verse teaches that only

“his offspring”

from them

becomes disqualified, but

if

he,

the kohen himself,

does not become disqualified.

We learned in the Mishna:

A female kohen may become impure

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

And we explain:

What is the reason?

Because

the verse says [Leviticus 21:1]:

(Leviticus 21:1):

“Say to the kohanim, the sons of Aaron”,

“and say to them: He shall not become impure for a dead person among his people.”

The verse teaches:

“The sons of Aaron,”

but not the daughters of Aaron.

We learned in the Mishna:

A kohen eats from the most sacred offerings,

but a female kohen does not eat from the most sacred offerings:

And the Gemara explains: Because

it is written

with regard to the meal-offering [Leviticus 6:10]: “It is most holy, like the sin-offering and the guilt-offering.”

“Every male among the sons of Aaron shall eat it.”

We learned in the Mishna:

And what is the difference between a man and a woman?

A man uncovers his head and rends his garments, but a woman does not uncover her head or rend her garments:

The Sages taught:

The Torah states in the passage concerning afflictions [Leviticus 13:42]:

“If there shall be in the baldness of his head or in the baldness of his forehead a white-reddish affliction, it is a spreading leprosy in the baldness of his head or in the baldness of his forehead. He is an afflicted man; he is impure. The kohen shall surely declare him impure; his affliction is in his head.”

From the implication of the statement

“a man,”

I have only

that a man becomes impure through afflictions.

A woman—

from where

do we know that she becomes impure through afflictions?

The verse states

in the following verse: “The kohen shall surely declare him impure; his affliction is in his head.”

“And the afflicted person who has

the affliction shall have his garments torn.”

The verse need only have said: “His affliction is in his head; his garments shall be torn,” for it is obvious that the verse is speaking of an afflicted person. Therefore, the Torah added and said: “And the afflicted person who has the affliction,” to tell you:

Here there are two

afflicted persons.

That is, this includes a second afflicted person, in addition to the “man”; and this is the woman.

You might say:

If so,

that a woman also becomes afflicted and becomes impure through afflictions,

what does the verse mean

at the beginning of the passage by saying

“a man”?

It is not in order to exclude a woman from the laws of afflictions, but

with regard to what follows [that is, what is stated below], namely, “his garments shall be torn,” and to teach that only

[the matter stated below], namely, “His garments shall be torn,” and to teach that only

a man uncovers

his head and rends his garments, but a woman does not uncover her head or rend her garments.

We learned in the Mishna:

A man can impose nazirite status upon his son, but a woman cannot impose nazirite status upon her son: Rabbi Yohanan said:

This law

is a halakha

given to Moses at Sinai

with regard to naziriteship.

We learned in the Mishna:

A man may shave using the nazirite offerings of his father, but a woman may not shave using the nazirite offerings of her father:

Rabbi Yohanan said: It is a halakha

given to Moses at Sinai

with regard to naziriteship.

We learned in the Mishna:

A man may betroth his daughter, but a woman may not betroth her daughter:

And we explain the reason: Because

it is written [Deuteronomy 22:16]: “And the father of the young woman shall say to the elders,”

(Deuteronomy 22:16): “The father of the young woman shall say to the elders,

“I gave my daughter to this man,”

which shows that the verse placed the giving of her to a man in the hands of her father.

We learned in the Mishna:

A man may sell his daughter, but a woman may not sell her daughter:

And we explain the reason: Because

it is written [Exodus 21:7]:

(Exodus 21:7):

“If a man sells his daughter”

as a maidservant; and we learn from here: “A man,” but not a woman.

We learned in the Mishna:

A man is stoned naked, but a woman is not stoned naked:

And we explain:

What is the reason?

Because it is stated [Leviticus 24:14]: “Take out the blasphemer outside the camp, and let all those who heard place their hands upon his head,”

“and they shall stone him”

“the entire assembly.”

And it is necessary to analyze:

What

does

“him”

come to exclude?

If you say,

if it means

“him but not her,”

teaching that a woman is not stoned at all, this cannot be said, because

isn’t it written

with regard to a betrothed young woman [Deuteronomy 22:23]: “If there shall be a virgin young woman betrothed to a man, and a man finds her in the city and lies with her,”

“you shall take both of them out to the gate of that city, and you shall stone them with stones”

“and they shall die”—which shows that a woman too is stoned.

Rather,

“and they shall stone him” was stated in order to teach: only

“him”

do you stone

without his clothing,

as the wording “him alone” implies;

but not her,

the woman, do you stone

without her clothing.

We learned in the Mishna:

A man is hanged, but a woman is not

hanged; and we explain:

What is the reason?

Because

the verse says [Deuteronomy 21:22]:

(Deuteronomy 21:22):

“And you shall hang him on a tree.”

The verse excludes

“him”

but not her.

We learned in the Mishna:

A man is sold for his theft, but a woman is not sold for her theft:

And we explain:

What is the reason?

Because

the verse says

[Exodus 22:2]: “If he has nothing,”

“he shall be sold for his theft,”

and we learn:

“for his theft”

but not for her theft.

The chapter “He Was Taking” is completed

Mishna:

The Mishna before us explains which women do not drink, but rather leave their husbands, and the laws governing their ketubah.

A. Women who are not married:

A betrothed woman,

a woman who became betrothed to her husband but has not yet entered the huppah, and whose betrothed husband issued her a warning,

and

likewise

a woman awaiting levirate marriage,

a woman whose husband died without children and who is awaiting levirate marriage with the yavam, her deceased husband's brother, and whose yavam warned her not to seclude herself with a particular man, and she secluded herself after the warning,

do not drink,

as the Mishna explains below; however, they become forbidden to their husbands,

and

therefore they

do not collect their ketubah

when they leave their husbands, because they caused themselves to become forbidden to their husbands through their seclusion.

The reason that they do not drink is

because it is stated: "

This is the law of the jealous woman,

who goes astray against her husband."

This indicates that the verse is speaking of a woman who is situated as a married woman with her husband; and the verse comes to exclude and say that only "a woman who is under her husband" drinks the water,

excluding a betrothed woman and a woman awaiting levirate marriage,

who have not yet married their husbands.

B. Women who are forbidden to their husbands through marriage: