## Sotah Daf 23b

###### Sotah 23b:1
[Sotah 23b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/23b:1)

וַאֲפִילּוּ רַבָּנַן לָא פְּלִיגִי עֲלֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אֶלָּא בְּמִנְחַת חוֹטֵא שֶׁל כֹּהֲנִים, דְּבַת הַקְרָבָה הִיא. אֲבָל בְּהָא, אֲפִילּוּ רַבָּנַן מוֹדוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And even the Rabbis do not disagree with Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, except with regard to the meal-offering of a sinner** who is **a priest, as** they hold that **it is fit to be sacrificed** in its entirety without removing a handful. **However, in this** case, i.e., in the case of the meal-offering of a *sota* who is married to a priest, **even the Rabbis agree** that its remainder is scattered on the place of the ashes, since the handful is removed from the offering.


###### Sotah 23b:2
[Sotah 23b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/23b:2)

בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל הַנְּשׂוּאָה וְכוּ׳. מַאי טַעְמָא — דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״וְכׇל מִנְחַת כֹּהֵן כָּלִיל תִּהְיֶה לֹא תֵאָכֵל״. כֹּהֵן וְלֹא כֹּהֶנֶת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna states: In the case of **an Israelite woman who is married** to a priest, her meal-offering is burned; and in the case of the daughter of a priest who is married to an Israelite, her meal-offering is eaten. The Gemara asks: **What is the reason** for this? This is **as the verse states: “And every meal-offering of a priest shall be completely burned; it shall not be eaten”** (Leviticus 6:16). One can infer that this applies to **a priest, but not** to **the daughter of a priest.**


###### Sotah 23b:3
[Sotah 23b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/23b:3)

כֹּהֶנֶת מִתְחַלֶּלֶת, כֹּהֵן אֵין מִתְחַלֵּל. מְנָלַן — דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״וְלֹא יְחַלֵּל זַרְעוֹ בְּעַמָּיו״. זַרְעוֹ מִתְחַלֵּל, וְהוּא אֵינוֹ מִתְחַלֵּל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna states: The **daughter of a priest can become disqualified** from marrying a priest and from partaking of *teruma* by engaging in sexual intercourse with someone forbidden to her, but **a priest does not become desacralized** by engaging in sexual intercourse with a woman forbidden to him. The Gemara asks: **From where do we** derive this? It is **as the verse states** with regard to a priest who marries a woman forbidden to him: **“And he shall not disqualify his offspring among his people”** (Leviticus 21:15), indicating that **his offspring** from forbidden intercourse **are desacralized, but he is not** personally **desacralized** through his actions.


###### Sotah 23b:4
[Sotah 23b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/23b:4)

כֹּהֶנֶת מִטַּמְּאָה כּוּ׳. מַאי טַעְמָא — אָמַר קְרָא: ״אֱמֹר אֶל הַכֹּהֲנִים בְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן״. בְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן וְלֹא בְּנוֹת אַהֲרֹן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna states: **A daughter of a priest may become impure** with impurity imparted by a corpse, but a priest may not. The Gemara asks: **What is the reason** for this? The Gemara answers: **The verse states: “Speak to the priests, the sons of Aaron,** and say to them: None shall become impure for the dead among his people” (Leviticus 21:1). The verse indicates that this applies to **the sons of Aaron and not** to **the daughters of Aaron.**


###### Sotah 23b:5
[Sotah 23b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/23b:5)

כֹּהֵן אוֹכֵל בְּקׇדְשֵׁי קֳדָשִׁים, דִּכְתִיב: ״כׇּל זָכָר בִּבְנֵי אַהֲרֹן יֹאכֲלֶנָּה״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna states: **A priest may eat from offerings of the most sacred order,** but a daughter of a priest may not eat from offerings of the most sacred order. The Gemara explains: This is derived **as it is written** with regard to the meal-offering, which is an offering of the most sacred order: **“Every male among the children of Aaron may eat of it”** (Leviticus 6:11).


###### Sotah 23b:6
[Sotah 23b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/23b:6)

וּמָה בֵּין אִישׁ כּוּ׳. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״אִישׁ״ — אֵין לִי אֶלָּא אִישׁ. אִשָּׁה מִנַּיִן? כְּשֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר ״וְהַצָּרוּעַ אֲשֶׁר בּוֹ״ — הֲרֵי כָּאן שְׁנַיִם,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna states: **And what** are the halakhic differences **between a man** and a woman? A man lets his hair grow and rends his garments when he is a leper, but a woman does not. **The Sages taught:** The verse states: “He is a leprous **man,** he is impure” (Leviticus 13:44). **I have** derived **only** that the *halakhot* of a confirmed leper apply to **a man; from where** do I derive that they apply to **a woman? When it says** in the subsequent verse: **“And the leper in whom** the plague is, his clothes shall be rent, and the hair of his head shall grow wild and he shall cover his upper lip; and he shall cry: Impure, impure” (Leviticus 13:45), **there are two** individuals indicated **here,** as this verse did not need to restate “and the leper,” as the subject of the verse was clear from the previous verse.


###### Sotah 23b:7
[Sotah 23b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/23b:7)

אִם כֵּן, מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״אִישׁ״ — לָעִנְיָן שֶׁלְּמַטָּה, אִישׁ פּוֹרֵעַ וְכוּ׳.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**If so, what** is the meaning when **the verse states:** A leprous **“man”?** This is referring **to the matter** of rending one’s clothes and letting one’s hair grow wild, **which** is stated in the verse **below,** and teaches that **a man lets** the hair of his head **grow** and rends his garments, but a woman does not.


###### Sotah 23b:8
[Sotah 23b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/23b:8)

הָאִישׁ מַדִּיר אֶת בְּנוֹ בְּנָזִיר, וְאֵין הָאִשָּׁה מַדֶּרֶת בְּנָהּ בְּנָזִיר. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, הֲלָכָה הִיא בְּנָזִיר: הָאִישׁ מְגַלֵּחַ עַל נְזִירוּת אָבִיו, וְאֵין הָאִשָּׁה מְגַלַּחַת עַל נְזִירוּת אָבִיהָ. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הֲלָכָה הִיא בְּנָזִיר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna states: **A man can vow** that **his** minor **son** shall **be a nazirite, but a woman cannot vow** that **her son** shall **be a nazirite. Rabbi Yoḥanan says: This is a *halakha*** transmitted orally to Moses from Sinai **with regard to** the **nazirite,** and it is not derived from the Bible. The mishna states: **A man can shave** at the culmination of his naziriteship **by** using offerings designated for **his father’s naziriteship, but a woman cannot shave by** using offerings designated for **her father’s naziriteship. Rabbi Yoḥanan says: This is a *halakha*** transmitted orally to Moses from Sinai **with regard to** the **nazirite,** and it is not derived from the Bible.


###### Sotah 23b:9
[Sotah 23b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/23b:9)

הָאִישׁ מְקַדֵּשׁ אֶת בִּתּוֹ, וְאֵין הָאִשָּׁה מְקַדֶּשֶׁת אֶת בִּתָּהּ — דִּכְתִיב: ״אֶת בִּתִּי נָתַתִּי לָאִישׁ הַזֶּה״. הָאִישׁ מוֹכֵר אֶת בִּתּוֹ, וְאֵין הָאִשָּׁה מוֹכֶרֶת אֶת בִּתָּהּ — דִּכְתִיב: ״וְכִי יִמְכּוֹר אִישׁ אֶת בִּתּוֹ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna states: **A man can betroth his daughter** to another man while she is a minor, **but a woman cannot betroth her daughter.** The Gemara explains: This is **as it is written:** “And the father of the maiden shall say to the elders: **I gave my daughter to this man** as a wife” (Deuteronomy 22:16), indicating that it is only the father who has the power to betroth his daughter. The mishna states: **A man can sell his daughter** as a maidservant **but a woman cannot sell her daughter.** The Gemara explains: This is derived **as it is written: “And if a man sells his daughter** to be a maidservant” (Exodus 21:7), indicating that only a man can sell his daughter, while a woman cannot.


###### Sotah 23b:10
[Sotah 23b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/23b:10)

הָאִישׁ נִסְקָל עָרוֹם כּוּ׳. מַאי טַעְמָא — ״וְרָגְמוּ אוֹתוֹ״. מַאי ״אוֹתוֹ״? אִילֵּימָא אוֹתוֹ וְלֹא אוֹתָהּ, וְהָכְתִיב ״וְהוֹצֵאתָ אֶת הָאִישׁ הַהוּא אוֹ אֶת הָאִשָּׁה הַהִיא״! אֶלָּא: אוֹתוֹ בְּלֹא כְּסוּתוֹ, וְלֹא אוֹתָהּ בְּלֹא כְּסוּתָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna states: **A man is stoned naked,** but a woman is not stoned naked. The Gemara asks: **What is the reason** for this? The Gemara answers: The verse states: **“And** let the entire congregation **stone him”** (Leviticus 24:14). **What** does the term **“him”** come to exclude? **If we say** this means that they stone **him but not her,** i.e., that a woman is not stoned at all, **but isn’t it written: “And you shall take out that man or that woman,** who did this evil thing, to your gates, that man or that woman; and you shall stone them with stones, and they shall die” (Deuteronomy 17:5). **Rather,** the term **“him”** excludes his garment, indicating that he is stoned **without his garment. And** a woman is excluded from this *halakha*, as one may infer from the term “him” that they do **not** stone **her without her garment.**


###### Sotah 23b:11
[Sotah 23b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/23b:11)

הָאִישׁ נִתְלֶה וְאֵין כּוּ׳. מַאי טַעְמָא — אָמַר קְרָא: ״וְתָלִיתָ אוֹתוֹ עַל עֵץ״, אוֹתוֹ וְלֹא אוֹתָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna states: **A man is hanged, but** a woman is **not** hanged. The Gemara asks: **What is the reason** for this? **The verse states:** “And if a man has committed a sin worthy of death, and he is put to death, **and you shall hang him on a tree”** (Deuteronomy 21:22). The verse indicates that one should hang **“him,”** a man, **but not her,** a woman.


###### Sotah 23b:12
[Sotah 23b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/23b:12)

הָאִישׁ נִמְכָּר בִּגְנֵיבָתוֹ, וְאֵין הָאִשָּׁה נִמְכֶּרֶת בִּגְנֵיבָתָהּ. מַאי טַעְמָא, אָמַר קְרָא: ״וְנִמְכַּר בִּגְנֵיבָתוֹ״, בִּגְנֵיבָתוֹ וְלֹא בִּגְנֵיבָתָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna states: **A man is sold for his** committing an act of **theft, but a woman is not sold for her** committing an act of **theft.** The Gemara asks: **What is the reason** for this? **The verse states:** “If the sun rose upon him, there is blood-guilt for him; he shall make restitution; if he has nothing, **then he shall be sold for his theft”** (Exodus 22:2). The verse indicates that he is sold **for his theft, but** she is **not** sold **for her theft.**


###### Sotah 23b:13
[Sotah 23b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/23b:13)

**הֲדַרַן עֲלָךְ הָיָה נוֹטֵל**


###### Sotah 23b:14
[Sotah 23b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/23b:14)

**אֲרוּסָה** וְשׁוֹמֶרֶת יָבָם — לֹא שׁוֹתוֹת וְלֹא נוֹטְלוֹת כְּתוּבָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״אֲשֶׁר תִּשְׂטֶה אִשָּׁה תַּחַת אִישָׁהּ״, פְּרָט לַאֲרוּסָה וְשׁוֹמֶרֶת יָבָם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** With regard to **a betrothed woman** who secluded herself with another man after being warned by her betrothed, **and a widow waiting for her brother-in-law [*yavam*]** to perform levirate marriage who secluded herself with another man after being warned by her *yavam*, **they neither drink** the bitter water **nor collect** payment of their **marriage contracts.** The reason they are not entitled to payment of their marriage contracts is that the betrothed woman became forbidden to her betrothed or the widow became forbidden to her *yavam* due to her own actions of entering into seclusion with the paramour. And the fact that they do not drink the bitter water is **as it is stated:** “This is the law of jealousy, **when a wife, while under her husband, goes astray,** and is defiled” (Numbers 5:29). The verse **excludes a betrothed woman and a widow awaiting her *yavam*;** since they are not yet married, neither is considered as “under her husband.”


###### Sotah 23b:15
[Sotah 23b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/23b:15)

אַלְמָנָה לְכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל, גְּרוּשָׁה וַחֲלוּצָה לְכֹהֵן הֶדְיוֹט, מַמְזֶרֶת

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna delineates cases where the woman’s marriage was prohibited in the first place: With regard to **a widow** who was married **to a High Priest,** or **a divorcée or *ḥalutza*** who was married **to a common priest,** or **a *mamzeret***