Jewish audio on Chabad.org. Today's שיעור will be מסכת סוטה דף כ״ג, but we will start on דף כ״ב עמוד ב׳ from the beginning of the משנה. And the משנה starts: רבי שמעון אומר, רבי שמעון says, אין זכות תולה במים המרים, that no זכות, no merit, can suspend the effect of the מים המרים, of the water of bitterness. ואם אתה אומר הזכות תולה במים המאררים, and if you are going to say that a זכות, a merit, can suspend the effect of the מים המאררים, מדהה אתה את המים בפני כל הנשים השותות, you darken the color of the water in the eyes of all the women who drink. In other words, you discredit the effect of this water, and therefore women will not be afraid to drink this water, knowing that it's very possible that a זכות that she might have will suspend the effect of this water. And also, ומוציא אתה שם רע על הטהורות ששתו, and you give out a bad name on the pure women who drank, that if a woman drank and nothing happened to her, and this is supposed to prove that this woman is innocent, but if there is such a concept that a זכות could suspend the effect of the מים המאררים, so then even if a woman drank and nothing happened to her, this does not prove that she is innocent. שאומרים, people will say, טמאות הן, really they are טמא, really they are guilty, אלא שתלתה להם זכות, but a זכות that they had suspended the effect of the water upon them. And therefore רבי שמעון holds that no זכות could suspend the effect of the water. But רבי אומר, רבי says, הזכות תולה במים המאררים, a זכות can suspend the effect of the water. And what will happen?

ואינה יולדת ואינה משבחת, she will not give birth to any children after she drank the water if she is really guilty, and the reason the water did not take effect was because of the זכות she had, so she will not give birth to any children afterwards, ואינה משבחת, and she also will not become better. אלא, but what happens to her? מתנוה והולכת, she becomes ill gradually, וסוף היא מתה באותה מיתה, at the end, she dies with the same death that is prescribed in the תורה that happens to a סוטה if she is guilty. So even though it doesn't happen at the moment when she drinks the water, but since she is guilty, and the only thing was that a זכות suspended the effect, eventually she will die with the same מיתה as told in the תורה concerning a סוטה who is guilty. And the זכות that we are referring to here, the גמרא already earlier had discussed what kind of זכות that is. Then the משנה continues:

נטמאת מנחתה עד שלא קדשה בכלי, if the מנחה that this סוטה brought became טמא before it became holy in the כלי, before it was put into the כלי שרת, which is the special vessels of the בית המקדש, that when you put the מנחה or anything else into a כלי שרת, it becomes holy, it gets the קדושה of the קרבן. So if it became טמא before you put it into the כלי, before it got holy through this כלי שרת, through this holy vessel, הרי היא ככל המנחות, then that is like any other מנחה that the same thing happened to, ותפדה, and you could redeem it. Just like by any other מנחה that's brought to the בית המקדש, and it became טמא before it was put into כלי שרת, the דין is that you redeem it and you use the money to buy another מנחה, the same would be the דין with this מנחה, that if the מנחה of the סוטה became טמא before it was put into the כלי שרת, you would redeem it and use the money to buy another מנחה. ואם משקדשה בכלי, but if it became טמא after it became holy through the vessel, if it was already put into the כלי שרת and then it became טמא, then the דין is הרי היא ככל המנחות ותשרף, the דין is as by all other מנחות, that if it became טמא after it was put into the כלי שרת, the דין is you must burn it, you must destroy it. The same דין would apply to this מנחה, that if the מנחה of the סוטה became טמא after it was already put into the כלי שרת, and it had already became קדוש, became holy, then you cannot redeem it, but you have to destroy it, and she would have to bring other flour for her קרבן מנחה. And the משנה continues: ואלו שמנחותיהן נשרפות, and these are the cases when the מנחה of a סוטה must be burnt:

האומרת טמאה אני לך, for instance, that she says to her husband, "I am טמאה for you." In other words, she admits her guilt. She admits that when she went into hiding with the man that her husband had warned her not to go, she actually did do the עבירה. So then you cannot bring the מנחה anymore, because the דין is that the מנחה and and the water can only be done if we do not know whether she is guilty or innocent. But if we know for sure that she is guilty, then she cannot drink the water, and we cannot bring her מנחה. So in a case where the מנחה was prepared, and she claims, "טמאה אני לך," she then admits that "I am טמאה, I did do the עבירה," so then you have to burn the מנחה. Or, ושבאו לה עדים שהיא טמאה, or if עדים came, witnesses came to testify that she is טמאה, and for the same reasons as we said before, her מנחה cannot be sacrificed, because now it is no more question, no more doubt whether she did the עבירה or not, because two עדים testify that she did do the עבירה. So her מנחה has to be burned. Or, והאומרת איני שותה, if she says, "I do not want to drink," she doesn't say, "I did the עבירה," but she just says, "I do not want to drink," so she doesn't drink, she is forbidden to live with her husband, and the מנחה cannot be brought, so that מנחה would be burned. Or, ושבעלה אינו רוצה להשקותה, or if her husband does not want her to drink, if at the time the מנחה was prepared, her husband changed his mind and he said, "Well, I do not want her to drink the water," so then she does not drink the water, but the מנחה that was prepared has to be burned. Or, ושבעלה בא עליה בדרך, if her husband had relations with her on the way, on the way from his hometown to ירושלים taking her to the בית המקדש in order to have her drink the מים המאררים and bring the מנחה, etc., so on the way, he had relations with her, which he was not allowed. Because as soon as he warns her not to hide with the man, and she does not listen and she does hide, she is forbidden to be with her husband till after she drinks the water and proves her innocence. But if on the way to ירושלים her husband had relations with her, so then the water will not be בודק, and therefore the מנחה cannot be brought, so that מנחה would have to be burned. Then the משנה continues, וכל

הנשואות לכהנים מנחותיהן נשרפות. This does not refer to a סוטה, this goes back to a regular קרבן מנחה, that a woman who is the wife of a כהן, if she brings a מנחה, her מנחה must be burned. Because the דין is that normally a מנחה of a ישראל, part of it is burned on the מזבח, and part of it is eaten by the כהנים. You take off a קומץ, you take off a handful, and that goes to the מזבח, and the שירים, the leftovers of the handful, goes to the כהנים to be eaten. Concerning a כהן, the תורה says that a קרבן מנחה of a כהן should not be eaten at all, but the whole קרבן goes on the מזבח. There is no קמיצה. You do not take off a handful from the קרבן מנחה of a כהן to put on the מזבח, but rather the whole קרבן, all the flour, goes on the מזבח. So the משנה tells us that if a woman is married to a כהן, her מנחה too is burned completely, not only the קומץ, but the whole קרבן is burned, and the גמרא will later explain why. And the משנה continues to explain: בת ישראל שנישאת לכהן, מנחתה נשרפת. Even if she is a daughter of a ישראל, she is not a כהנת on her own right, she is not a daughter of a כהן, she is a daughter of a ישראל, but she is married to a כהן, so her מנחה would be burned on the מזבח completely. כהנת שנישאת לישראל, but on the other hand, if she herself is a כהנת, she's a daughter of a כהן, but she is married to a ישראל, מנחתה נאכלת, her מנחה is eaten like a regular מנחה of a ישראל, that the קומץ goes on the מזבח, and the rest is eaten. Then the משנה continues, מה

בין כהן לכהנת? What is generally the difference between a כהן and a כהנת? A male כהן and a female כהנת meaning a daughter of a כהן. And the משנה explains, מנחת כהנת נאכלת, מנחת כהן אינה נאכלת. One difference is, as we said before, the מנחה of a כהנת, if she is not married to a כהן, but if she is just a כהנת on her own right, a daughter of a כהן, her מנחה is eaten, it is not completely burned, but the מנחה of a כהן is not eaten, but the whole מנחה goes to the מזבח. Another difference between a כהן and a כהנת, כהנת מתחללת, וכהן אין מתחלל. A כהנת could become a חללה. If she marries somebody that she's not allowed to marry, or even if she just has relations with somebody that is forbidden to her, she becomes a חללה, and then a כהן cannot marry her ever. Plus, she becomes אסור forbidden to eat תרומה, because the This the דין is that as long as she is in her father's home, and her father is a כהן, and she is not married, she could eat from her father's תרומה, or if she marries a כהן, she could eat from her husband's תרומה. But if she became a חללה, then she is forbidden to eat from תרומה. But a כהן, a male כהן, cannot become a חלל. In other words, if he marries somebody he is not allowed to, for instance, if he marries a divorcée, a גרושה, or he marries a זונה or a חללה, so even though at the time when he is still married to her, he cannot eat the תרומה, etc., as מפרשים say, but if he divorces her, he again could eat תרומה, and he remains a regular כהן. He cannot become a חלל forever, but a woman could become a חללה forever. And the משנה continues another difference between a כהן and a כהנת: כהנת מטמאה למתים, a כהנת is allowed to become טמא through dead bodies, but אין כהן מטמא למתים, a כהן, a male כהן, cannot become טמא למתים. The תורה says that a כהן is not allowed to become טמא to מתים, but as the גמרא will explain, this only applies to a male כהן, but not to a female כהנת. Another difference is כהן אוכל בקדשי קדשים, a כהן is allowed to eat קדשי קדשים. There are two levels of קרבנות: certain קרבנות, like a שלמים, etc., are called קדשים קלים, the lower level of קדשים, and then the עולה, etc., is called קדשי קדשים, that is the higher level of קדשים. And the דין is that from קדשים קלים, even the female כהנת's could eat. A wife of a כהן or a daughter of a כהן could also eat from that קרבן. But from קדשי קדשים, only the זכרים, only the males from the כהנים could eat, but ואין כהנת אוכלת בקדשי קדשים, a כהנת, a female כהן, cannot eat from the קדשי קדשים. Then the משנה continues, while we are already explaining the difference between a כהן and a כהנת, the משנה already goes into a difference generally between a man and a woman, a male and a female, a זכר and a נקבה. And the משנה says: מה

בין איש לאשה, what is the difference in הלכה between a man and a woman? And the משנה explains: האיש פורע ופורם, which means if a person becomes a מצורע, he has a נגע, so he has a דין of מצורע. If it fits the conditions that the כהן פסקנ'ס that this person is a מצורע, so then there are many דינים that apply concerning this מצורע, and one of the דינים is that he must rend his clothes and must loosen his hair. So the משנה tells us that this דין, that you must rend your clothes and loosen your hair, only applies to a man, ואין האשה פורעת ופורמת. But a woman, if she becomes a מצורעת, she does not have to rend her clothes and does not have to loosen her hair. Another difference: האיש מדיר את בנו בנזיר. A man could make a נדר, a vow, for his son to become a נזיר. If he says that his son should become a נזיר and he makes a נדר, so then this causes the son to actually become a נזיר, and all the דינים of נזירות apply to this son. But ואין האשה מדרת את בנה בנזיר, but a woman cannot make a vow that her son should become a נזיר. If she does, it is not valid, because she cannot make the דין of נזירות fall upon her child, but a man can do that. And the משנה continues another difference: האיש מגלח על נזירות אביו, a man is able to cut his hair, if he is himself a נזיר, on the נזירות of his father. In other words, if a person became a נזיר, and then set aside his קרבנות, his sacrifices, to bring when he will be finished with his נזירות, and he died, and his son was also a נזיר, so the son is able to use the קרבנות that the father had set aside for his own נזירות, to use it for his own נזירות of the son. But ואין האשה מגלחת על נזירות אביה, but a woman cannot cut her hair on the נזירות of her father, which means if the same thing happened, but it wasn't a son, but a daughter, so this daughter cannot use the קרבנות of her father, if he died, for her own נזירות. האיש מקדש את בתו, a man is allowed to take קידושין for his daughter. If his daughter is still a minor, she is still a קטנה or a נערה, which means she is under 12 or 12 and a half, so then the father would take from a man the money for קידושין, and the daughter is automatically מקודשת to that man, she becomes the wife of that man. So this דין, that a father can take קידושין for his daughter, is only by a father, but ואין האשה מקדשת את בתה, but a woman cannot take קידושין for her daughter. האיש מוכר את בתו, a man is allowed to sell his daughter as an אמה עבריה. We find in חומש in פרשת משפטים that a father is allowed allowed to sell his daughter as an אמה עבריה, as a Jewish maid, to another Jewish person, and this מכירה is valid. And this is only while she's a קטנה, etc. But this דין that a parent could sell a daughter to become a שפחה, which means really an אמה עבריה, only applies to the father, to the man, but ואין האשה מוכרת את בתה, but a woman cannot sell her daughter as an אמה עבריה. Another difference: והאיש נסקל ערום, a man if he is stoned, if he gets capital punishment through סקילה, for there are four ways that the בית דין could kill a person, four different דינים concerning different עבירות. If the punishment is סקילה, that he has to get stoned, so the דין is you would unclothe the person and you would stone him naked. But this דין only applies to a man, ואין האשה נסקלת ערומה, but a woman is not stoned naked. When you stone the woman if she deserves the death penalty of סקילה of being stoned, it would be with her clothes on. והאיש נתלה, after a person gets his death penalty and he is killed, the דין is that you must hang him for a day. So the דין is that והאיש נתלה, a man is hanged, ואין האשה נתלית, but a woman is not hanged. והאיש נמכר בגנבתו, a man is sold for his גניבה if he stole. The דין is that if a person steals and doesn't have any money to pay for the גניבה, so then the בית דין would sell this person to another ייד as an עבד עברי, as a Jewish slave, and the money that the person would pay for this slave would go to repay for the גניבה that the person stole. So this דין the משנה says only applies to a man: if a man stole, then the בית דין would sell him for his גניבה. But ואין האשה נמכרת בגנבתה, but a woman is not sold for her גניבה. If a woman steals and doesn't have any money to pay, so then the בית דין would not sell her as an אמה עבריה. גמרא continues: תנו רבנן, the רבנן learned. The rule is that כל הנשואות לכהונה מנחתיהן נשרפות, that all those women who are married to כהנים, if a woman is married to a כהן, so the מנחה that she brings would be burnt. And the גמרא explains כיצד, what does that mean? The גמרא will explain the case and also explain the reason why if she is married to a כהן, even though she herself is not a כהן or it makes no difference even she is a כהנת, her מנחה is not eaten like a regular מנחה of a ישראל. The גמרא explains כיצד, how is it? כהנת לויה וישראלית שנשאת לכהן, if a כהנת, if she herself was a daughter of a כהן, or she was a לויה, a daughter of a לוי, or if she was a regular ישראלית, a daughter of a ישראל, and she was married to a כהן, אין מנחתה נאכלת, so to say that her מנחה should be eaten like a regular קרבן of a ישראל we can't say that, מפני שיש לו חלק בה, because her husband has part in her מנחה. Since the flour that she brings belongs to her husband, because as תוספות explains מה שקנתה אשה קנה בעלה, whatever a woman owns really it belongs to her husband, so the מנחה that she brings really her husband has a חלק in that מנחה, it's his, so therefore you cannot eat the מנחה because a קרבן of a כהן, a מנחה of a כהן cannot be eaten. So since her husband the כהן has a part in this מנחה, so then the מנחה cannot be eaten. But on the other hand, ואינה עולה כולה, you cannot bring it up completely on the מזבח without any קמיצה, etc. because מפני שיש לה חלק בה, because since it's her מנחה, so she herself also has a part in that מנחה. And since she is not a כהן, so therefore you cannot do with her מנחה as you would do with a מנחה of a כהן, not to make a קמיצה, just to put it directly on the מזבח, because after all she's not a כהן, so you would have to take off a קמיצה from her קרבן. So what do you do? אלא הקומץ קרב בעצמו והשירים קריבין בעצמן. You take off a קומץ like you would do by a regular קרבן מנחה of a ישראל, but the leftover of that קומץ by a ישראל you would eat it, give it to the כהנים to eat. But in this case, since her husband is a כהן, you take the שירים, the leftovers, and also put it on the מזבח. So therefore both things would be accomplished: on one hand there would be a קומץ like a קרבן of a ישראל, on the other hand you would not eat leftovers, but the leftovers would also go on the מזבח. And as רש״י explains, since both of them have a חלק in the קרבן, the husband who is a כהן and the wife who is not a כהן, and since we are not sure which side of the two is stronger, and therefore we have a ספק what should really be done with this קרבן: is the side of her husband is stronger. So then what we have to do is burn the whole קרבן on the מזבח. Is the side of the wife stronger? Then you would only take off a קומץ and burn that on the מזבח, and the rest would be eaten. So since we don't know which one it is, so what we do is, we take off a קומץ, put the קומץ on the מזבח, and the leftovers also go on the מזבח. And we make like a condition, and we say: is her husband's side the stronger side? So let's discount the קומץ as if there was no קומץ taken off, and let's consider both parts of the מנחה put on the מזבח as if it was a קרבן of a כהן. Because the fact that a קומץ was taken off is לא מעלה ולא מוריד, doesn't cause any harm and doesn't do any good if it was a כהן. So therefore, since the bottom line is that the whole מנחה is brought on the מזבח, so then we could consider it as a קרבן of a כהן. On the other hand, we say that if this her side is the stronger side, and therefore you should not do with it as you do with a קרבן of a כהן, so we say like this: that let the קומץ that is put on the מזבח be considered as a קומץ, and the rest, the other part that is also put on the מזבח, should not be considered as part of the קרבן. So according to this, we accomplish both; whichever one it is, we did כהלכה. Then the גמרא asks: אי קרי כאן, let's call here, let's apply here the דין of כל שהוא ממנו לאישים הרי הוא בבל תקטירו, that anything that part of it is only supposed to go to the מזבח, so then the rest of it you are not allowed to be מקטיר. This is a דין that is learned out in part from a פסוק in פרשת ויקרא. It is קפיטל ב', פסוק י"א. The פסוק says: כל המנחה אשר תקריבו לה' לא תעשה חמץ, any מנחה that you are מקריב to ה' should not be made חמץ, כי כל שאור וכל דבש לא תקטירו ממנו אשה לה', because all שאור, which is חמץ, and all honey you should not be מקטיר ממנו from it אשה לה', which is a קרבן to ה'. And the גמרא learns out from this extra word ממנו: the תורה should have said כי כל שאור וכל דבש לא תקטירו אשה לה', because all שאור and דבש you should not be מקטיר as a קרבן to ה'. What does the תורה mean with adding this word that all שאור and דבש you should not be מקטיר ממנו, from it you should not be מקטיר a קרבן to ה'? So from here the גמרא learns out that this comes to teach us another דין: that if ממנו אשה לה', that if a קרבן had a part of it that was supposed to go as a קרבן to ה', so then the rest of it is לא תקטירו, you cannot be מקטיר. In other words, they would be learning the פסוק: לא תקטירו, do not be מקטיר, ממנו אשה לה', that if ממנו, from it, a part of it went as a קרבן to ה'. And this teaches us that let's say a קרבן that

you're only supposed to be מקטיר the חלב on the מזבח, which really includes all the קרבנות except the קרבן עולה, so you are not allowed to be מקטיר the meat from that קרבן that is supposed to be eaten, you're not allowed to be מקטיר it on the מזבח, because of this פסוק that since only part of it is supposed to go on the מזבח, so you're not allowed to be מקטיר the rest. And the same applies to a קרבן מנחה: since a קרבן מנחה you're only supposed to be מקטיר the קומץ of it to ה' on the מזבח, so then the rest of it, the שירים which is supposed to be eaten, is not allowed to go on the מזבח. And that's the גמרא's קשיא here: that since we don't know which of the two sides is stronger, and it's possible that her side is stronger, and therefore her מנחה is supposed to be like a regular מנחה of a ישראל, that only the קומץ is supposed to go on the מזבח and the rest should not go on the מזבח, so how can we say that we take the קומץ on the מזבח and the שירים, the leftovers, is also burnt on the מזבח separately? But if her side is stronger, then we're not allowed to burn the שירים on the מזבח. And the

גמרא answers: אמר יהודה בריה דרבי שמעון בן פזי, that יהודה the son of רבי שמעון בן פזי said: דמסיק להו לשום עצים, that when you put the שירים on the מזבח, you keep in mind that you're putting it as if it was wood. You're not putting it in mind as a קרבן, as part of the קרבן, but you are putting it as part of the fuel, as part of the wood. And this goes כרבי אלעזר, like רבי אלעזר. דתניא, because we learn in a ברייתא: רבי אלעזר אומר, רבי אלעזר says, לריח ניחוח אי אתה מעלה אבל אתה מעלהו לשום עצים, that this דין that if it is a קרבן that only part of it belongs on the מזבח you're not allowed to bring the rest, that איסור is only if you would bring the rest as part of the קרבן. You bring it for the sake of a קרבן, you bring it for ריח ניחוח. ריח ניחוח is the term used in the תורה for a קרבן, that when you bring a קרבן it is for a ריח ניחוח. to השם, it is for a pleasant smell to השם. So if you bring the שירים, the rest of the קרבן, which really doesn't belong on the מזבח, if you bring it on the מזבח as part of the קרבן, for ריח ניחוח, then you are עובר a איסור. That is what you're not allowed to do. But to put it on the מזבח as part of עצים, like fuel, like the rest of the wood, that you are allowed. And really this is a מחלוקת between רבי אלעזר and the חכמים in מסכת זבחים, as רש״י points out. The

case in מסכת זבחים is, if you have parts of a קרבן חטאת that got mixed up with parts of a קרבן עולה. The parts, the אברים, of the קרבן חטאת really are to be eaten, because from a קרבן חטאת you do not put the meat on the מזבח. But the אברים of the קרבן עולה, the limbs, the meat of the קרבן עולה, does belong on the מזבח, because an עולה is כולה כליל, an עולה is burned completely on the מזבח. So if you have parts of a חטאת and parts of an עולה that got mixed up, so what could you do with it? So the חכמים say that you have to burn it, destroy it, because there is nothing to do with it. You can't eat it, because maybe it's the עולה. You can't put it on the מזבח, because maybe it's the חטאת. And since this does not belong on the מזבח if it's part of the חטאת, you're not allowed to put it on the מזבח because of this איסור, that since only part of it belongs to the מזבח, so the rest cannot go on the מזבח. But רבי אלעזר says, no, there is an עצה. You should burn it on the מזבח, so if it's an עולה, then definitely it's good. Even if it's the חטאת, you have in mind that it should be burned on the מזבח not as part of a קרבן, but it should be burned as עצים. Because רבי אלעזר holds that the whole איסור of כל שממנו לאישים הרי הוא בבל תקטירו, that you're not allowed to burn the שירים on the מזבח, is only if you use it לשם ריח ניחוח as part of the קרבן, but not if you do it לשם עצים. And then the

גמרא asks a קשיא, הניחא לרבי אלעזר, this is fine according to רבי אלעזר. So according to רבי אלעזר there is no problem, דאית ליה, because he holds, האי סברא, this סברא, that if you don't put it on the מזבח for the sake of a קרבן, you are allowed. אלא לרבנן דלית להו האי סברא, according to the רבנן who don't hold of this סברא, they argue as we said before, מאי איכא למימר, what can we do according to the רבנן, what can we do with this קרבן of the if woman who was married to a כהן? We cannot burn the שירים on the מזבח, because according to them, even if you do it לשם עצים, it is forbidden. And the גמרא answers, דעבדי להו כרבי אלעזר ברבי שמעון. According to the רבנן, you would do as the opinion of רבי אלעזר ברבי שמעון. What is the opinion of רבי אלעזר ברבי שמעון? דתניא, we learned in a ברייתא, רבי אלעזר ברבי שמעון אומר, רבי אלעזר ברבי שמעון says, הקומץ קרב בעצמו והשירים מיתפזרין על בית הדשן, that you burn the קומץ, the handful, by itself, and the leftovers is spread out in the בית הדשן, the place where you would put the ashes of the מזבח. This is really a מחלוקת, a three-way מחלוקת, between רבי שמעון and the רבנן and רבי אלעזר ברבי שמעון in the גמרא of מנחות, as רש״י points out. And this is concerning a מנחת חוטא of a כהן. The

דין that we said before, that if a כהן brings a מנחה, it is burned completely on the מזבח without a קומץ, that applies according to everybody if the כהן brings a מנחת נדבה. He brings a מנחה out of a freewill as a קרבן נדבה to השם, so then the תורה says definitely that it is burned completely on the מזבח. The question is, what is the דין concerning a קרבן חטאת of a כהן, if a כהן brings a מנחת חוטא? Because the תורה says in חומש ויקרא, in פרשת ויקרא, in קפיטל ה׳, there the תורה talks about certain עבירות. For instance, if a person was טמא and he entered the בית המקדש, or he ate קדשים, or a few more עבירות, and the תורה says that you have to bring a קרבן חטאת, and the תורה says if you cannot afford the בהמה, the animal, then you're allowed to bring birds as your חטאת. And the תורה continues and says that if you cannot afford birds as your חטאת, you're allowed to bring a קרבן מנחה as your חטאת. And the תורה finishes off in קפיטל ה׳, פסוק י״ג, וכיפר עליו הכהן על חטאתו אשר חטא מאחת מאלה ונסלח לו, that the כהן will cause the כפרה for the person who did the עבירה, and the תורה finishes off, והיתה לכהן כמנחה, and it should be to the כהן like a מנחה. So there is a מחלוקת in the גמרא in מנחות, דף ע״ג עמוד ב׳, what the פשט in these words, והיתה לכהן כמנחה, is. The חכמים say that the תורה is trying to tell us that if a כהן would bring this קרבן חטאת, this מנחת חוטא, he would have to do with it the same as with the regular In other words, just like by a regular מנחה of a כהן, a מנחת נדבה, you do not take off a קומץ, you burn the whole thing on the מזבח, the same would be if the כהן would bring this קרבן מנחה, the מנחת חוטא, the מנחה which is the חטאת, the same דין would apply that he would have to burn the whole קרבן on the מזבח. But ר' שמעון argues, the גמרא tells us there, and he says the פשט in the פסוק is different. והיתה לכהן כמנחה means that if a כהן would bring this מנחה, it should be like a מנחה of a ישראל. Just like by a מנחה of a ישראל you have to take off a קומץ, so the מנחה from a כהן, if it's a מנחת חוטא, you also have to take off a קומץ, which is different than a מנחת נדבה of a כהן. But ר' שמעון does say this does not mean that the שיריים, the leftovers of this קומץ, would be eaten like a regular מנחה of a ישראל, because he says the פסוק says והיתה לכהן כמנחה, that when we say that the מנחה of the כהן is compared to a מנחה of a ישראל is only concerning the עבודה of the כהן, only what the כהן has to do. In other words, by a מנחה of a ישראל, the עבודה of the כהן is to take off a קומץ. So too, if this same מנחה would be brought by a כהן, the כהן's עבודה would be the same, that he would have to take off a קומץ. But concerning the שיריים, whether it should be eaten or not, there it remains like a regular קרבן of קרבן מנחה of a כהן, and therefore the שיריים would also be burnt on the מזבח. So it comes out that ר'

שמעון argues on the חכמים, who say that the מנחת חוטא of a כהן is burnt completely. ר' שמעון says that you take off a קומץ and you leave the שיריים, but the שיריים also goes on the מזבח separately. And he does not hold of this דין, as רש"י explains, that if only part of it is supposed to go to the מזבח, so the rest is not allowed to go. But he holds that this מנחה, you burn them both, but you must burn the קומץ separately and the שיריים separately. But ר' אלעזר בר' שמעון, he holds a different דין. ר' אלעזר בר' שמעון says that what you would do with this קרבן is you would take off a קומץ and you would burn the קומץ on the מזבח. You could not burn the rest on the מזבח because of the דין כל שממנו לאישים הרי הוא בבל תקטירו, that since only a קומץ is supposed to go to the מזבח, you cannot burn the rest on the מזבח. So what does he say you would do with the rest? You do not eat it either, but you would spread it out on the בית הדשן, in the place of the ashes next to the מזבח. And this would be done to the קרבן in our case too. In our case where we have the question of the קרבן מנחה that was brought by a wife of a כהן, so what we would do is we would take off a קומץ, because maybe her part is stronger, and therefore you must take off a קומץ of her קרבן just like you do by a קרבן מנחה of a ישראל. On the other hand, the rest cannot be eaten, because maybe his part is stronger, and it is considered a קרבן מנחה of a כהן, and you cannot eat it. To burn the rest on the מזבח we can't either, because maybe her part is stronger, and therefore it is considered a קרבן of a ישראל, and the דין is that since only the קומץ is supposed to go on the מזבח, you're not allowed to burn the rest on the מזבח. And even if you will do it לשם עצים, but this is only good according to ר' אלעזר, not according to the רבנן. So therefore the גמרא says what we would do is we would take off a קומץ, burn on the מזבח, and the rest we would do like ר' אלעזר בר' שמעון, that we would spread it out on the בית הדשן. And the גמרא continues, ואפילו רבנן לא פליגי עליה דר' אלעזר בר' שמעון אלא במנחת חוטא דכהנים. That even though when ר' אלעזר בר' שמעון said his דין, that the שיריים are spread out on the בית הדשן, there is a מחלוקת between ר' אלעזר בר' שמעון and the רבנן, for the רבנן there hold that you do not do that, the רבנן hold that you burn the whole thing on the מזבח, so לכאורה, how can we say that we would do like ר' אלעזר בר' שמעון, but not everyone agrees to him? So the גמרא says that even the רבנן who argue on ר' אלעזר בר' שמעון, so they only argue in the case where ר' אלעזר בר' שמעון said his דין, which is the case of a מנחת חוטא, there they argued because דבת הקרבה היא, because the rest of the שיריים is a בת הקרבה, which means it is able to go on the מזבח. Since according to the רבנן, they hold that we compare a מנחת חוטא of a כהן to a מנחת נדבה of a כהן, so they hold there is no reason why not to be מקריב the שיריים on the מזבח, because according to them, this has the regular דין of a מנחה of a כהן and you must burn the whole thing on the מזבח. So therefore over there, they argue against ר' אלעזר בר' שמעון and they hold that you burn the whole thing on the מזבח and not that the שיריים is spread out on the בית הדשן. אבל בהא, but in our case, since in our case, we cannot burn the rest on the מזבח, since maybe her side is stronger, and this is a regular מנחה of a ישראל, and you're not allowed to burn the שיריים on the מזבח, so here, אפילו רבנן מודו, even the רבנן admit that what you would do with the שיריים, you would spread it out on the בית הדשן. And now the גמרא continues to explain the משנה. It

said in the משנה, בת ישראל הנסואה וכו', a בת ישראל that was married to a כהן, so her קרבן is burned, but if she is a כהנת that was married to a ישראל, her קרבן is eaten. And the גמרא asks מאי טעמא, what is the reason? Where does the משנה take this דין from? And the גמרא answers דאמר קרא, because the פסוק says, it's a פסוק in פרשת צו, קפיטל ו', פסוק ט"ז, it says, וכל מנחת כהן כליל תהיה לא תאכל, that every מנחה of a כהן should be burned completely and it should not be eaten. And since the תורה says, וכל מנחת כהן, so we learn out כהן ולא כהנת, a כהן, not a כהנת. That only if he is a כהן, that's when his קרבן is completely burned and not eaten, but if she is a כהנת, then her קרבן is eaten. It's only that if she is married to a כהן, then the קרבן is not eaten as we said before, because of the part of her husband who is a כהן that's in this קרבן. Then the גמרא continues to explain the משנה. It says כהנת מתחללת, כהן אין מתחלל. A כהנת could become a חללה, if she has relations with someone that is forbidden, she becomes a חללה, now she cannot marry a כהן, and cannot eat תרומה anymore. But a כהן, even if he marries somebody he's not allowed, he doesn't become a חלל. And the גמרא says מנא לן, how do we know this דין? And the גמרא answers דאמר קרא, because the פסוק says in ויקרא כ"א it says, ולא יחלל זרעו בעמיו, that he should not desecrate his children in his nation. So we learn out from here זרעו מתחלל, that his children can become מתחלל, can become חללים through his forbidden marriage. But והוא אינו מתחלל, but he himself cannot be מתחלל, he cannot become a חלל. And as רש"י explains that the גמרא in קידושין learns out from this פסוק לא יחלל that there are שני חילולין, there are two types of חילולין that happen through the כהן marrying a woman that is forbidden. One is לה, for her, that the woman he marries becomes a חללה, and one is לזרעו, for his children, that the children he has from this woman who he was not allowed to marry are חללין. But he himself does not become a חלל. And from here the משנה knows that a כהן cannot be מתחלל. It said in the משנה כהנת מיטמאה וכו', a כהנת is allowed to become טמא to dead bodies, but a כהן is not allowed. And the גמרא asks מאי טעמא, what is the reason? The גמרא answers אמר קרא because the פסוק says, אמור אל הכהנים בני אהרן, in the beginning of פרשת אמור where the תורה tells us this דין that a כהן is not allowed to become טמא, the תורה starts with the words אמור אל הכהנים בני אהרן, you should speak, tell the כהנים the sons of אהרן, and continues by telling us this דין that the כהנים should not become טמא. So we learn out from that פסוק בני אהרן ולא בנות אהרן, that only the sons of אהרן are forbidden, but not the daughters of אהרן. That this דין was told only to the sons, not to the daughters, not to the כהנת. It said in the משנה כהן אוכל בקדשי קדשים, a כהן is allowed to eat קדשי קדשים, but not a כהנת. The גמרא says דכתיב because the פסוק says כל זכר בבני אהרן יאכלנה, that every male of the sons of אהרן is allowed to eat it, and this is concerning קדשי קדשים. So the תורה says clearly that only a זכר, only a male is allowed, but not the נקבה, not the female. Then it said in the משנה ומה בין איש וכו' that what is the difference between a man and a woman? And the first דין that the משנה brought was that a man if he is a מצורע, he is supposed to rend his clothes and loosen his hair, but a woman, if she is a מצורע, does not have to do that. And the גמרא brings a ברייתא concerning this דין. The ברייתא says like this: תנו רבנן, we learned in a ברייתא: איש, the תורה says איש, and this is concerning the פסוק in פרשת תזריע, קפיטל י"ג, פסוק מ"ד, the פסוק speaks about a person who has a נתק, which is a נגע in his hair, and after the תורה tells us the different conditions that makes him טמא, the תורה concludes in פסוק מ"ד, איש צרוע הוא טמא הוא, that the man is a צרוע, he is טמא. Since the תורה says the man, איש, אין לי אלא איש, so I would only think that a man can become טמא with טומאת נתקים, which is the טומאה of a נגע in the hair, אשה מניין, how would we know that a woman can also become טמא with this type of טומאה? So the גמרא says כשהוא אומר, since the פסוק says, והצרוע אשר בו, next פסוק starts off by saying, והצרוע אשר בו הנגע בגדיו יהיו פרומים וראשו יהיה פרוע. So the צרוע that in him is the נגע, his clothes should be rendered and his hair should be loosened. But the question is, why does the פסוק have to repeat the words והצרוע אשר בו? Since the פסוק before already said, איש צרוע הוא טמא הוא, that he is a צרוע and he is טמא, so the next פסוק should have just started that what should he do? בגדיו יהיו פרומים וראשו יהיה פרוע. Why does the פסוק repeat by saying והצרוע אשר בו, a צרוע that in him is this נגע? So this comes to teach us הרי כאן שנים, that there are two, that there are two types of people who can become צרוע, which means that not only a man can become a צרוע, but the תורה is מרבה, includes, another צרוע, which is a woman. So from here we see that a woman can become טמא with the טומאת נתקים. But then the question is אם כן מה תלמוד לומר איש, so why does the תורה say איש? If a woman can also become טמא with טומאת נתקים, why does the פסוק say איש צרוע הוא, as if the פסוק is telling us that this דין only applies to a man and not to a woman? And the גמרא answers לענין שלמטה. The תורה tells us specifically only a man has this דין, not concerning all the דינים of צרוע, but only concerning the דין that is mentioned in the פסוק right afterwards. And that is that איש פורע וכו׳, that only a man rends his clothes and loosens his hair, but not a woman. Because the פסוק right afterwards, the דין that's written in that next פסוק, it says that בגדיו יהיו פרומים וראשו יהיה פרוע, that his clothes he should rend and his hair he should loosen. So that's why the תורה says איש in the beginning to tell us that this דין only applies to a man and not to a woman. Then the משנה said, האיש מדיר את בנו בנזיר ואין האשה מדרת את בנה בנזיר, only a man can make the vow that his son should become a נזיר and not a woman. אמר רבי יוחנן, and רבי יוחנן said, הלכה היא בנזיר. There is no פסוק for this, but this is a הלכה, הלכה למשה מסיני handed down from משה רבינו in the דינים of נזיר that only a man could be מדיר his son a נזיר and not a woman. It also said in the משנה, האיש מגלח על נזירות אביו ואין האשה מגלחת על נזירות אביה, only a man can use the קרבנות of his father. If it was set aside for his נזירות, so he could use it for his own נזירות, but a woman cannot do that. אמר רבי יוחנן, and רבי יוחנן said, הלכה היא בנזיר. This too is a הלכה in נזיר, it's הלכה למשה מסיני in the דין of נזיר that only a man could do it and not a woman. It also said in the משנה, האיש מקדש את בתו ואין האשה מקדשת את בתה, only a man could take קידושין for his daughter, but a woman cannot take קידושין for her daughter. And the גמרא says דכתיב because there's a פסוק that says את בתי נתתי לאיש הזה. In the beginning of that פרשה it says that the father says, "I gave my daughter to this man." So from there we see that a father is able to give his daughter to a man, which means he receives the קידושין for his daughter. But since the פסוק says the father said that, so we see from there that only a man could do it for his daughter, but not a woman, a mother, to do it to her daughter. It said in the משנה, האיש מוכר את בתו ואין האשה מוכרת את בתה, a man could sell his daughter as an אמה עבריה, but a woman cannot sell her daughter as an אמה עבריה. And the גמרא says דכתיב because the פסוק says, in משפטים where it speaks about the דינים of אמה עבריה, it says כי ימכר איש את בתו, that if a man will sell his daughter. So from here we see that only איש, only a man could sell his daughter, but not a woman. האיש נסקל ערום וכו׳, a man when he is stoned, he is stoned naked, but not a woman. The גמרא says מאי טעמא, what is the reason? Because when it speaks about the דין of סקילה, of stoning, in the תורה, the תורה says ורגמו אותו, you should stone him. So מאי אותו, what does the פסוק אותו mean, him? אילימא if you will say אותו ולא אותה, that you only stone him and not her, in other words, a woman does not get סקילה ever, that cannot be. דכתיב because the פסוק says והוצאת את האיש ההוא או את האשה ההיא. It's a פסוק in דברים י״ז that speaks about עבודה זרה, that if a man or a woman worshipped עבודה זרה, idols, so then they deserve to be killed and they are stoned. The תורה says you should take out that man or that woman and you should stone them. So we

see clearly in the תורה that a woman does get סקילה. So then we cannot say that when the תורה says ורגמו אותו, you should stone him, the תורה means to exclude a woman, that a woman is not stoned at all. אלא what does the word אותו mean? אותו בלא כסותו, he, when he is stoned, it's without his clothes, ולא אותה בלא כסותה, but not she without her clothes. her clothes. In other words, if a woman is stoned, it is with her clothes. And we learn it out from the word אותו, because אותו means him. And when we say him, it means only him, nothing else, which really means that he doesn't wear anything, so when he is stoned, it is purely him. So since the תורה tells us this דין, that it must be purely him without anything else on him concerning a man, that that teaches us that only a man is stoned without clothes, but a woman is stoned with clothes. Then it said in the משנה, האיש נתלה ואין כולי, a man you hang after he is killed, but not a woman. מאי טעמא, what is the reason? The גמרא says, אמר קרא, the פסוק says, ותלית אותו על עץ, that you should hang him on the tree. אותו ולא אותה, him and not her. So the תורה tells us that a woman is not hanged. It said in the משנה, האיש נמכר בגנבתו ואין האשה נמכרת בגנבתה, only a man is sold if he stole and doesn't have any money to pay, but a woman is not sold for her גנבה if she steals and doesn't have what to pay. מאי טעמא, what is the reason? The גמרא says, אמר קרא, the פסוק says, ונמכר בגנבתו, that he should be sold for his גנבה, for his stealing. So we learn out, בגנבתו ולא בגנבתה. For his stealing he is sold, but for her stealing she is not sold. From here we see that a woman is not stole sold for her גנבה. הדרן עלך היה נוטל, הדרן עלך היה נוטל, הדרן עלך היה נוטל. ארוסה ושומרת יבם לא שותות ולא נוטלות כתובה. There are a few interesting points concerning the גמרא we learned today that it is important to mention. We learned earlier in the גמרא that concerning a קרבן of a woman who is married to a כהן, that the דין is that you take the קומץ off and you burn that separately, and then you burn the שירים separately, according to the beginning of the גמרא, and the גמרא explained that you burn the שירים לשם עצים, that you have in mind that it is not לשם ריח ניחוח as part of a קרבן, but it is as fuel, as עצים for the מזבח. And the גמרא said that this goes according to רבי אלעזר, that he says concerning a case where there was a mixture of parts of an עולה and parts of a חטאת, so he says the דין is that you do burn it on the מזבח, and even though there is an איסור in burning something that doesn't belong on the מזבח, but you have in mind that if it is not the עולה, but it is the חטאת, it should be לשם עצים. So same thing here too, that you burn it on the מזבח, and as רש״י explained, you make a condition: if the side of the husband is stronger, in other words, that really this has a דין of a מנחה of a כהן, then this שירים would be part of the מנחה, would be burned as a קרבן. On the other hand, if the side of the woman is stronger and this should be a regular מנחה of a ישראל, so then this should be לשם עצים. So תוספות asks a קושיא: why does רש״י have to mention here the idea of תנאי, that you make a condition and you say if it's the דין of a מנחת כהן then let that be part of the מנחה, if it's a מנחת ישראל then let it be לשם עצים? This idea of a תנאי, תוספות says, only fits in the case where the מחלוקת of רבי אלעזר and the רבנן is. There, when there is a mixture of אברי חטאת and אברי עולה, so there, there is no choice but to make a condition, because we don't know, when we put that אבר on the מזבח, we don't know whether it is an אבר of a חטאת or an אבר of an עולה. So we make a condition and we say if it's an עולה, then let it be לשם קרבן, if it's חטאת, that it should not be burned and is not allowed to be burned, then let it be לשם עצים. But in our case, there is no ספק here. There is no question whether his side is stronger or her side is stronger. Here, it is no mixture. It is just that we have two parts to the קרבן. So therefore, in order to fulfill the conditions of his side of the קרבן, we must burn it on the מזבח. In order to fulfill her side of the קרבן, that you're not allowed to burn it, so therefore we have in mind לשם עצים. But it is not a question of making a תנאי. And תוספות says that when רש״י wrote the idea of תנאי, it was אגב שיטפיה, because we find a similar thing in a different גמרא. We find in the גמרא יבמות, there we find that if a כהן got mixed up with a ישראל, two women gave birth to two children, a כהנת and a ישראלית, and we don't know which child is of which mother, so each one of them is a ספק, maybe he is a כהן, maybe he's a ישראל. So there the גמרא says that if either one of them brings a קרבן, so then this is what you do with the קרבן: you take off a קומץ, you put the קומץ on the מזבח, and the שירים is also brought on the מזבח separately, לשם עצים. And there we must make a תנאי, because there there is a ספק, we don't know whether this child is a כהן or a ישראל. So we put it on the מזבח, the שירים, and we say, is this person a כהן, let this שירים be לשם קרבן, because a כהן's קרבן must be burned completely, if it is a ישראל, so then this really should not go on the מזבח, then let it be לשם עצים. So since over there the גמרא said that it has to be על ידי תנאי, through a condition, so here too רש״י mentioned the idea of condition. But really תוספות says, here we do not have to have the idea of condition. Here, it's a regular דין, that being that it's a mixture of both. There is a חלק of the כהן in this קרבן, and a חלק of her in the קרבן, therefore we do both, not because of a תנאי that we make, but this is the original דין. We burn it on a מזבח, but not as a קרבן 100%, but we have in mind also לשם עצים. But the קרן אורה answers the קשיא of תוספות on רש״י. The קרן אורה says that רש״י must say what he says, because if not for the idea of condition, then the question is, why is it that we burn it separately לשם עצים? Let's look into it and let's come to a decision. Is her side stronger? Then let's not burn it at all. Is his side stronger? Then let's burn it together, not לשם עצים, but לשם קרבן. Therefore רש״י must say that this whole idea is a ספק, we are not sure which side is stronger. And being that we are not sure, therefore we must make this condition. If we would be sure, then we would say that we don't need a condition because we know for sure that both sides are here equally. But since we are not sure, that's what רש״י says, so therefore, the only way we could put it on the מזבח is if we make this תנאי, that if he is it is a קרבן of a כהן, it's burned לשם קרבן, if it's not a קרבן of a כהן, then it's burned לשם עצים. But the תורת הקנאות asks a קשיא on the קרן אורה, and he says, what forces רש״י to say that one of the two sides are stronger, and therefore we have a ספק which of the two is stronger, and therefore we must make a condition? Why couldn't רש״י learn that both sides are equal, there's a equal כח and זכות of the husband in the קרבן, and an equal כח and זכות of the wife in the קרבן, and therefore we cannot burn it לשם קרבן because of her זכות, we cannot eat it because of his זכות, and therefore we burn it, but לשם עצים? What forces רש״י to say that it's a ספק, and therefore we must come onto the תנאי? Maybe there is no ספק, maybe there is equally. And he says that we must say that according to רש״י, for some reason, רש״י feels that both sides are not equal. We cannot have an equal partnership of the זכות of the husband and of the wife in this קרבן. Therefore, we must say that one of the two is stronger. And the ספק is which of the two is stronger, and therefore the only way we could be מקריב it is if we make this condition. But at the end he says וצריך עיון, he says it's not so simple to understand what forces רש״י to say that both of them cannot have an equal כח and זכות in this קרבן. And concerning the end of the גמרא, where the גמרא learned out from the פסוק ונמכר בגנבתו, that only a man could be sold for his גנבה, but not a woman, תוספות asks an interesting קשיא. תוספות asks, why does the גמרא in קידושין have to learn out from a special פסוק, from עבד, that only an עבד, a male, has the דין of רציעה, but not an אמה עבריה? This is concerning the דין of an עבד who wants to stay more than six years by his master, because לכתחילה the דין is when you sell an עבד עברי, a Jewish עבד, he only works for six years and then he goes out free. But what happens if he says, "I want to stay longer"? So the דין is that you take him to the בית דין and the בית דין would have to ורצע אדוניו את אזנו במרצע, that they would bore a hole in his ear, and then he would stay on till יובל. But the גמרא learns out from a special פסוק that this דין only applies to a man, not to a woman. By a woman, by an אמה עבריה, this דין of רציעה does not apply. But תוספות asks a קשיא, why do we need that פסוק? Since we have another פסוק, and the גמרא learns out in קידושין from the פסוק ורצע את אזנו, that they would bore a hole in his ear, the גמרא learns out that this דין of רציעה only applies to an עבד עברי that was sold by בית דין, not by an עבד עברי that sold himself, because there are two ways a person could become an עבד עברי. One way is he could sell himself, another way is through בית דין selling him if he stole and didn't have any money to pay. And the פסוק where it speaks about רציעה, about making this hole in the ear, speaks about an עבד that was sold by בית דין. And since the תורה says ורצע את אזנו, his ear, so the גמרא learns out, his ear, not the ear of another עבד, which means only the ear of an עבד that sold was sold by בית דין, but if he was sold himself, this דין does not apply. So תוספות asks, since a woman cannot be sold for her גנבה, as we say in our גמרא here, so automatically a woman is excluded from the דין of רציעה. Since the דין of רציעה only applies to an עבד that בית דין sold, and since a woman cannot be sold by בית דין, so automatically a woman is exempt from this דין of רציעה. So then why does the גמרא in קידושין need a special פסוק to teach us that this דין of רציעה does not apply to a woman? And תוספות answers that the הוה אמינא would have been, we would have thought that it has nothing to do with בית דין selling him, it has to do with the fact that the person is not sold by himself. And an אמה עבריה is also not sold by herself. She is sold by her father. So I would think that even though an עבד that sold himself does not have the דין of רציעה, but an אמה עבריה would have the דין of רציעה, even though she is not sold by בית דין, but she is also not sold by herself, she is sold by her father. And that's why we need a special פסוק to teach us that this דין of רציעה does not apply to an אמה עבריה.