Sotah 23b — the Talmud in English

And here too, in the meal-offering of a married woman who is married to a koen, this is what he does; and because

even here, in the meal-offering of a sinner,

even the Rabbis do not disagree with Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon

and say that it is entirely burned on the altar, all this is not so

except with regard to a meal-offering of a sinner brought by koanim, for

according to the Sages, all of it

is fit for burning;

for its law is that it be entirely burned, like the meal-offering of his voluntary offering brought by a koen.

But in this case,

with regard to the meal-offering of a woman married to a koen, whose remnants are not fit for burning, because of the woman’s portion, while to burn them on the altar because of the man’s portion and to stipulate that it be for the sake of wood is impossible, because: “Anything from which portions are burned on the altar is subject to ‘You shall not burn it’”—

even the Rabbis agree

that the remnants are scattered over the ash heap.

We learned in the Mishna:

An Israelite woman who is married

and so on; a meal-offering of a female koen is eaten, and a meal-offering of a male koen is not eaten:

And we explain:

What is the reason?

Because

the verse says [Leviticus 6:16]: “And every meal-offering of a koen 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 have therefore learned:

“Koen”

and not a female koen.

We learned in the Mishna:

A female koen becomes profaned, but a male koen does not become profaned:

And we explain:

From where do we derive it?

Because

the verse says [Leviticus 21:15], concerning a High koen who marries women forbidden to him: “A widow or a divorced woman, or a profaned woman, a harlot—these he shall not take. Rather, a virgin from his people shall he take as a wife”;

and he shall not profane his seed among his people.”

The verse teaches that only

“

his seed”

from them

becomes profaned, but

if

he,

the koen himself,

does not become profaned.

We learned in the Mishna:

A female koen becomes impure through the dead,

but a male koen does not become impure through the dead:

And we explain:

What is the reason?

Because

the verse says [Leviticus 21:1]: “Say to the koanim, the sons of Aaron”

(Leviticus 21:1):

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

The verse teaches:

“

the sons of Aaron,”

and not the daughters of Aaron.

We learned in the Mishna:

A male koen eats of the most holy things,

but a female koen does not eat of the most holy things:

And the Gemara explains: because

it is written

concerning a meal-offering [Leviticus 6:10]: “It is most holy, like the sin-offering and like 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 and does not rend her garments:

The Sages taught:

It is stated in the Torah, in the section of afflictions [Leviticus 13:42]:

“Now if there shall be in his baldness or in his forehead a white-reddish affliction, it is a spreading leprosy in his baldness or in his forehead. He is a leprous man; he is impure. The koen shall surely declare him impure; his affliction is upon his head.”

From the implication of that which is stated

“a man,”

I have only

a man who becomes impure through afflictions;

a woman—

from where

does she become impure through afflictions?

The verse says

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

and the leprous person in whom

the affliction is, his garments shall be torn.

For it would have been necessary to say only: “His affliction is upon his head; his garments shall be torn,” since it is clear that the verse is speaking of a leprous person; therefore the Torah added and said: “And the leprous person in whom the affliction is,” in order to tell you:

here there are two

leprous persons.

That is, to include a second, additional leprous person, besides the “man.” And this is the woman.

Lest you say,

if so,

that a woman too becomes leprous and becomes impure through afflictions,

what does

the word

“man” at the beginning of the matter

come to teach?

Not to exclude a woman from afflictions, but

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

man uncovers his head

and rends his garments, but a woman does not uncover her head and does not 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 nazirite status.

We learned in the Mishna:

A man shaves on the nazirite status of his father, but a woman does not shave on the nazirite status of her father:

Rabbi Yohanan said: It is a halakha

given to Moses at Sinai

with regard to nazirite status.

We learned in the Mishna:

A man betroths his daughter, but a woman does 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,”

so the verse made her giving to a man dependent upon her father.

We learned in the Mishna:

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

And we explain the reason: because

it is written [Exodus 21:7]:

(Exodus 21:7):

“And if a man sells his daughter

as a maidservant,” and we learned from here: “‘A man’ and 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 all those who heard shall place their hands upon his head”;

“and they shall stone him”

the entire assembly.

And one must examine:

What

does the word

“him”

come to exclude?

If you say,

if it is said:

“him and not her,”

to say that a woman is not stoned at all—this cannot be said, because

it is written

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

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

and they shall die—thus, 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,

for this is the meaning of the expression, “him alone”;

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”

and not her.

We learned in the Mishna:

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

And we explain:

What is the reason?

Because

the verse says [Exodus 22:2]: “If he has nothing”;

(Exodus 22:2): “If he has nothing,

“then he shall be sold for his theft,”

and we learned:

“for his theft”

and not for her theft.

The way is upon you, chapter “He Was Taking”

Mishna:

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

A. Women who are not married:

Betrothed woman,

a woman who became betrothed to her husband but has not yet entered the wedding canopy, whom her betrothed husband warned,

and

likewise

a shomeret yavam,

a woman whose husband died without sons and who awaits yibbum by the yavam, her deceased husband's brother, whom her yavam warned not to seclude herself with a certain man, and they secluded themselves after the warning,

do not drink

as it explains below, but they become forbidden to their husbands,

and

therefore they

do not receive a 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

that it is stated “[A0022]]This is the law of the jealous women,

who strays

when a woman goes astray under her husband,”

which implies that it is speaking of a woman who sits under the authority of her husband as a married woman; 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 shomeret yavam,

who have not yet married their husbands.

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