Kommentar zu Sotah 3:14

היה נוטל – her husband [would take] her meal-offering, for the command of the priesthood regarding meal-offering is from taking a fistful of the meal-offering and onward (see also Talmud Menahot 9a) and bringing near [the meal-offering] is also the beginning of taking a fistful of the meal-offering but a foreigner (i.e., non-Kohen) does not make an offering on the altar but the sanctification of the utensils and the pouring of oil (on the flour – see Leviticus 2:1) and the mixing, as meal-offerings require oil are appropriate for non-Kohanim.

Introduction Numbers 5:25 reads, “Then the priest shall take from the woman’s hand the meal offering of jealousy, and wave the meal-offering before the Lord, and present it on the altar.” Our mishnah explains and paraphrases this verse. Interestingly, the Mishnah never describes the rubbing out of God’s name, although this is alluded to. Perhaps the activity was too frightful to even be described.

He takes her meal-offering out of the basket of palm-twigs and places it in a ministering vessel and sets it upon her hand. And the priest places his hand under hers and waves it. Above in mishnah one we learned that the meal offering was in the woman’s hands, in a basket of palm twigs. The priest now takes the offering and puts it in a ministering vessel, one of the normal vessels used in the Temple, as is customary for all meal offerings. The Torah does not state that the woman aids in the waving of the meal offering. However, the rabbis learned that all meal offerings are jointly waved by their owners and by the priest.

וכהן מניח ידו תחתיה – as it states regarding peace offerings (Leviticus 7:30): “his own hands shall present [the LORD’s offerings by fire],” and it is stated regarding the meal-offering of the woman suspected of unfaithfulness by her husband (Numbers 5:25): “Then the priest shall take from the woman’s hand [the meal-offering of jealousy,” just as with peace-offerings, the Kohen places his hand underneath the hand of the owners and waves it, so also in the meal-offering of the woman suspected of unfaithfulness by her husband, the Kohen places his hand underneath the hand of the woman and waves it.

והגיש – to the southwestern corner.

Introduction The mishnah continues to outline the process of the Sotah ritual. We should note that the Torah is ambiguous with regard to when the woman drinks the water. Numbers 5:24 says that the priest gives the sotah to drink, and then vs. 25-26 describe the sacrifice of the meal offering. However, the end of vs. 26 states “and afterward he shall make the woman drink the water.” Hence this point is debated in our mishnah.

והשאר נאכל לכהנים – for all the grabbed [portions of the meal-offerings] are their remnants and are eaten.

He waves it, he brings it near [the altar], he takes a handful and he turns it into smoke, and then the remainder is eaten by the priests. This section is a paraphrase of vs. 25-26. In yesterday’s mishnah the priest took the meal offering from the Sotah, and in today’s mishnah he offers it. This includes waving it (which was actually described in yesterday’s mishnah), bringing it to the altar, and finally taking a handful and burning it. The remainder can be eaten by the priests, as can most offerings.

היה משקה ואחר כך מקריב את מנחתה – Three Biblical verses are written: The first [verse]: "והשקה"–and he is to make the woman drink [the waters of bitterness]” (Numbers 5:24) is first; and after that:"ישקה" –Last, he shall make [the woman] drink the water” (Numbers 5:26) and last "והשקה" –Once he made her drink [the water]” (Numbers 5:27). The first mention of "והשקה"–and he is to make [the woman] drink [the waters of bitterness” is for itself – that he causes her to drink after the scroll is blotted out before the offering of the meal-offering. And afterwards, "ישקה" –”and he [shall make the woman] drink the water” – even though that it implies that she was specifically forced, the Biblical verse that is mentioned first is expounded for itself. But the Biblical verses that are mentioned after this are given for being expounded. Therefore, and afterwards "ישקה"–”and he [shall make the woman] drink [the waters of bitterness],” even though it is written after the offering of the meal-offering it refers to preceding the offering. But, it refers to the blotting out [of the parchment] that is written above, as it states, that if it was not blotted out, it is well, but if the form of the letters are recognized, he should not cause her to drink [the waters of bitterness]. And the concluding "והשקה"–Once he made her drink [the water] comes to teach us that if the scroll was blotted out and she states, “I will not drink,” they chide–scold her and force her to drink [the waters of bitterness].

He [first] gives [her the water] to drink, and then sacrifices her meal-offering. Rabbi Shimon says: he sacrifices her meal-offering and then gives her to drink, as it is said, “And afterward he shall make the woman drink the water” (Numbers 5:26), but if he gave her to drink and then sacrificed her meal-offering it is valid. According to the first opinion, the woman drinks the water and then the meal offering is sacrificed. Rabbi Shimon says that the opposite order is preferable. However, even according to Rabbi Shimon, if the priest performed the steps in the order prescribed by the previous opinion they are valid.

רבי שמעון אומר מקריב את מנחתה ואחר כך ישקה – that [the words[ "ואחר ישקה"–”Last, he shall make [the woman] drink [the water]” – specifically him, and specifically he wrote it after the offering [of meal-offering], and the first mention of "והשקה" –”and he is to make the woman drink [the waters of bitterness],” that if he forced her to drink post-facto, and afterwards made the offering of her meal-offering, it is fit. And the last [mention]: "והשקה" –”Once he made her drink [the water], that if the scroll was blotted out and she stated, “I will not drink,” we chide–scold her and cause her to drink it against her will. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Shimon.

מגילתה נגנזת – at the side of the Temple (in the hall containing the golden altar).

Introduction The Mishnah has now arrived at the critical moment, right before she is about to drink the bitter waters. She is given one last opportunity to refuse to drink or to admit to her crime.

ומנחתה מתפזרת על הדשן – and is burned on the place where the ashes of the sacrifices were deposited that was in the Temple courtyard where they burn there the unfit things for the Holy of Holies, for since it was sanctified with the sacred vessels–dedicated for the Temple service, it requires burning in the courtyard.

If before [the writing on] the scroll had been rubbed out, she said “I refuse to drink”, her scroll is stored away and her meal-offering is scattered over the ashes. And her scroll is not valid to be used in giving another sotah to drink. She may refuse to drink the water any time until the writing on the scroll has been rubbed out onto the water. At this point she need not admit that she had been defiled through adultery. However, she does lose her ketubah, as she would had she refused to drink at any other point in the process. At this point, the scroll has already been written and her meal offering has already been prepared. The scroll cannot be used by another sotah, rather it is stored away. According to the Palestinian Talmud, it is hidden in the hinges of the doors to the Temple’s entrance. There it will become worn out quickly. The meal offering cannot be eaten or used for another purpose; rather it must be burned by spreading it out upon the ashes (but not upon the altar).

ואין מגילתה כשרה לשקות [בה] סוטה אחרת – for we require writing for her sake, as it is written (there – Numbers 5:30): “and the priest shall carry out [all this ritual with her].” All of the carrying out of the ritual is for her sake.

If [the writing on] the scroll has been rubbed out and she said “I am defiled”, the water is poured out and her meal-offering is scattered over the ashes. If [the writing on] the scroll had been rubbed out and she said “I refuse to drink”, they open her throat and make her drink by force. If the writing had already been rubbed out, she may no longer refuse to drink the water without admitting her guilt. If she does try to do so, she can be forced to drink the water. However, even at this very late stage she may admit her guilt and thereby avoid drinking the water. If she does so, the water is spilled out and as before, the meal offering is burned on the ashes. We can see that the rabbis wanted to do just about everything possible to allow her to avoid drinking the water.

המים נשפכים – for since she said hat “I am ritually impure,” she is examined and stands, and the waters of bitterness were not given [to her] other than to verify through them the doubt.

מערערים אותה – for perhaps she is ritually pure, and on account of her being frightened she says it.

אינה מספקת לשתות – in the Gemara (Tractate Sotah 20b), that our Mishnah is according to Rabbi Akiva who holds like Rabbi Shimon who said that one offers her meal-offering and afterwards cause her to drink it. [for as long as] her meal-offering is not offered, the waters do not examine her, as it is written (Numbers 5:15): “a meal offering of remembrance which recalls wrongdoing.”

Introduction This mishnah begins by describing what happens immediately after the sotah drinks the water. The second half of the mishnah broaches the idea that if the woman has some type of “merit” the effect that the waters have on her is delayed, even if she did commit adultery. Part of this mishnah deals with women studying Torah, an issue which is of great importance in our society. We should remember that in the past century great advances were made in providing women with proper education in Torah. Some of the statements in this mishnah are, to put it mildly, not flattering to women and do not reflect the society in which we live or women’s place in that society. In my commentary on this mishnah I shall not delve deeply into this issue and the different ways in which this mishnah has been understood. Rather I refer the reader to Judith Hauptman’s excellent book “Rereading the Rabbis”. Professor Hauptman teaches at the Jewish Theological Seminary of America and her book contains some sensible statements on this mishnah in particular and on the rabbi’s attitudes’ towards women in general. Another interesting book, although very different than Hauptman’s, is Daniel Boyarin’s classic “Carnal Israel”, which also contains a chapter on women studying Torah.

מתמלאת גידין – since her flesh blows up, she appears like her sinews have become swollen.

She had barely finished drinking when her face turns yellow, her eyes protrude and her veins swell. And [those who see her] exclaim, “Remove her! Remove her, so that the temple-court should not be defiled”. The mishnah begins by describing the potentially immediate effects of the water. The people who see her scream that she must immediately be removed, lest she defile the Temple. I should note that this defilement is probably not of the typical ritual defilement, but rather a type of moral defilement. The Torah often describes three sins which defile but not in the same way that things such as a dead body, menstruation or leprosy defile ritually: murder, sexual sins (adultery and incest) and idol worship. These sins defile in such a way that their defilement cannot be easily removed through a standard purificatory process (i.e. a mikveh). As an adulteress, this woman’s mere presence in the Temple is perceived as dangerous.

שלא תטמא את העזרה – it is stated not from defilement from contact with the dead, but rather that she should not spread the condition of uncleanness from her period of menstruation and defile Nicanor [Gate] and the Women’s Court when she would go out through there for a menstruant woman and a woman with a flux are forbidden to enter the Temple mount. But a dead person himself is permitted to enter into the Temple Mount and [into] Nicanor [Gate] which were not sanctified with the holiness of the Temple Courtyard.

If she had merit, it [causes the water] to suspend its effect upon her. Some merit suspends the effect for one year, some merit suspends the effects for two years, and some merit suspends the effect for three years. The mishnah now introduces the idea that if she had some sort of merit, the water will not take immediate effect but its effect will be delayed. It is hard to tell whether the mishnah expects that such effect can be delayed indefinitely. The Talmud lists some ways in which a woman can gain merit and thereby defer the effects of the water. Besides Torah study which the sages debate below, the ways that the Talmud anticipates a woman’s merit involve her children or her husband. For instance, she can bring her children to school, or wait for her husband outside when she anticipates that he will be returning from a journey.

יש לה זכות וכו' – In the Gemara (Tractate Sotah 21a) it explains that the merit of [studying] the Torah is what suspends its effect for her as she brought her children to school and waited for her husband that he will leave outside of the city to engage in the study of Torah.

Hence Ben Azzai said: a person must teach his daughter Torah, so that if she has to drink [the water of bitterness], she should know that the merit suspends its effect. All the rabbis who debate agree that the most effective way for a person to gain merit is to study Torah. This is after all, perhaps the highest value in the rabbinic value system. However, the rabbis debate whether or not she should learn Torah. According to Ben Azzai, a father should teach his daughter Torah. His reasoning is somewhat strange. He holds that she should learn Torah so that if she drinks the waters and they do not take effect, she will not believe that the waters are ineffective but rather she will chalk it up to her Torah study. Doubt about the waters may cause her to believe that in the future she could get away with adultery again. In other words, teaching a daughter Torah is actually a means of preventing her from committing further adultery.

כאלו מלמדה תפלות – the juxtaposition of sexual connection of men that from the Torah she understands shrewdness and makes her words in chastity as it is written (Proverbs 8:12): “I, Wisdom, lives with prudence; [I attain knowledge and foresight]” (see Talmud Sotah 21b).

Rabbi Eliezer says: whoever teaches his daughter Torah teaches her lasciviousness. Rabbi Eliezer says the opposite. If the girl learns Torah she will think that as long as she learns Torah, she is “free” to commit adultery, for she will be protected against the effects of the bitter waters.

רוצה אשה בקב – to feed a small amount of food so that sexual intercourse will be available to her.

Rabbi Joshua says: a woman prefers one kav (of and sexual indulgence to nine kav and sexual separation. The connection between Rabbi Joshua’s statement and those which precede it is unclear. Rabbi Joshua says that a woman prefers the sexual company of her husband (or another man) even more than she does extra money to buy more things. Practically speaking, she does not want him to travel on business but would rather him stay home to be with her. “Sexual company” in this statement has a negative connotation. Perhaps, Rabbi Joshua is saying that she does not realize the sacrifice of sexuality that Torah study requires, and hence it is not an appropriate endeavor for her.

מתשעה קבין ופרישות – to separate from sexual intercourse; therefore, there is no good that is Torah study.

He used to say, a foolish pietist, a cunning wicked person, a female separatist, and the blows of separatists bring destruction upon the world. This statement is an addendum to the mishnah, brought here because it was said by Rabbi Joshua and it also makes reference to a woman who separates herself. There are four types of people that destroy the world: 1) A foolish pietist. This is illustrated as a man who for matters of modesty does not rescue a drowning woman. 2) A cunning wicked person. One way that this is illustrated is that he is lenient when he makes rulings for himself and stringent when it comes to rulings for other people. 3) The word which I have translated as “separatist” can also be translated as “Pharisee”, but I believe that in this mishnah it does not refer to a woman who was a member of this Second Temple political party. Rather, it refers to a woman who separates herself too much from sexual relations. Abstinence is not the ideal proposed by Rabbi Joshua, nor almost any rabbi. Rather his ideal is one of moderation. 4) In this clause the “separatists” probably does refer to the Pharisees. Rabbi Joshua is referring to hypocritical Pharisees, who strike and flagellate themselves in order to make themselves look pious, when in reality they are not so. We can see that Rabbi Joshua portrays an ideal of religious honesty and moderation and is deeply skeptical of outward acts of zealousness. This attitude of inner, rational, non-zealous piety is, in my mind, the ideal portrayal of the righteous Jew.

חסיד שוטה – It explains in the Gemara (Talmud Sotah 21b) such as the example that a woman drowned in the river and he said: “It is not the way of the world to look at this woman and to save her.”

רשע ערום – such as the example where a person speaks in a misleading manner to the judge prior to his fellow litigant coming and when the gates of merit were opened in the heart of the judge to my words, it is difficult to remove them and behold, his wickedness and shrewdness of that [litigant] who transgressed on (Exodus 23:1): “You must not carry false rumors.”

ואשה פרושה – such as the example of a woman sorcerer who would close the womb of women that are giving birth through sorcery and the woman giving birth would have difficulty doing so. She would say: “I will go and pray; perhaps my prayer will be accepted and she dissolves her witchcraft and she gives birth.

ומכות פרושים –that he hits himself to show that he is humble and modest, like the example that he walks at the rear at the side of greatness and does not raise his foot from the ground and as a result knocks his fingers on stones and he is that which called in the Gemara (Talmud Sotah 22b) a knocker–borrower (an opprobrious epithet for a sort of sanctimonious Pharisees), or someone who makes himself as one who closes his eyes so as to not look at women. And because of this, he strikes his head and the wall and blood leaves him. And he who is called a bleeder, meaning to say that he bleeds himself as a result of his [excess] piety.

הרי אלו מכלי עולם – that they want to demonstrate to humanity that they are pious but their inner being is not like their outer shell.

מדחה אתה את הטוב – weakens and darkens. The missing resemblance is called “feeble”–”faint” in the language of the Mishnah.

Introduction In our mishnah, Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi [Judah Hanasi] argue whether or not merit suspends the effect of the bitter waters.

מתנוונה והולכת – to continually become more faint.

Rabbi Shimon says: merit does not suspend the effect of the bitter waters, and if you say that merit does suspend the effect of the bitter waters, you discredit the water in the case of all the women who drink it and defame the pure woman who drank it, since people will say, “They were defiled”, but their merit caused suspended the effect. Rabbi Shimon disagrees with the previous mishnah and holds that merit does not suspend the effect of the bitter waters (the sotah waters). What is most interesting about Rabbi Shimon’s position is that his argument is practical. If the effects were suspended, the test would be rendered far less effective. First of all, women will not fear drinking the water, for they will reason that their accumulated merit will aid them in avoiding their punishment. This is similar to Rabbi Eliezer’s argument not to teach daughter’s Torah, which we saw in the previous mishnah. Secondly, not only will the waters not have their desired effect in deterring potential adulteresses, they will not clear the good name of women who are truly innocent. People who see that the woman who drank the water has not been affected will assume that it was because of her merits, and not because of her overall innocence.

Rabbi says: merit suspends the effect of the bitter waters, but she never bears a child or thrives, rather she gradually becomes disfigured and finally dies through that death. Rabbi seems to reach a compromise position, between that of Rabbi Shimon and that of the previous mishnah. Merit does suspend the effects of the water, but not absolutely. It only slows down the slow process of disfigurement, the curse mentioned in the Torah. If the woman were innocent, she would become pregnant and give birth, as is promised in Numbers 5:28. However, if she is guilty but has some merit, she will not give birth, her condition will not improve, but rather she will slowly deteriorate until she dies from the type of death promised to her by the Torah. In this way, even though merit does suspend the effect, this does not discredit the effect of the bitter waters, nor does it cause people to be suspicious of pure women.

נטמאת מנחתה עד שלא קדשה בכלי. הרי היא ככל המנחות – that it was defiled before it was sanctified in a utensil.

Introduction This mishnah deals with situations in which the sotah’s meal offering cannot be offered. Mishnah three above already stated that there are some situations in which the meal offering is burned whole and none of it is eaten by the priests. Our mishnah lists three reasons why the meal offering may be burned: 1) it was defiled through contact with something which defiles, i.e. a dead body; 2) the woman does not end up drinking the water; 3) she was the wife of a priest.

ותפדה – and it is removed for non-holy produce, and from the monies [from the sale of it], he should purchase another.

If her meal-offering became defiled before it was sanctified in the ministering vessel, behold it is like all meal-offerings [similarly defiled] and can be redeemed. But if [it became defiled] after it had been sanctified in the ministering vessel, behold it is like all meal-offerings [similarly defiled] and it is burned. This section explains what happens if the meal offering is defiled. These rules for the sotah’s meal offering are no different than those other meal offerings. Before the offering has been put into the ministering vessel, if it was defiled it can be redeemed. This is performed by taking money and “purchasing” the offering and then using that same money to buy another offering. However, once it has entered the ministering vessel it has been sanctified. If after this point it is defiled, it cannot be redeemed but rather must be burned.

ותשרף – when the body was sanctified with holiness and it doesn’t go out anymore for non-holy produce.

These are the ones whose meal-offerings are burned: She who says, “I am defiled to you”; And when witnesses came [and testified] that she had been defiled; She who says “I refuse to drink”, She whose husband refuses to let her drink; And she whose husband had relations with her on the journey [to Jerusalem]. These are all cases in which the woman cannot drink the water or doesn’t drink the water because she refuses. All of these cases have been mentioned in various mishnayoth above. In these cases if the meal offering had already been put into a ministering vessel, it can no longer be redeemed and must be burned.

וכל הנשואות לכהנים מנחותיהן נשרפות – and even if a fistful was brought according to the law and not defiled, its remnants are burned on the place where the ashes of sacrifices were deposited and are not consumed because her husband, the Kohen has a portion in it, for it comes from what is his , and the Torah stated (Leviticus 6:16): “So, too, every meal offering of a priest shall be a whole offering: it shall not be eaten.” But the bride is not a whole offering because she has a part in it, and it comes for her atonement. How is this so? The handful of the meal offering which the priest takes to be put on the altar is offered on its own and the left overs are offered on their own.

And the meal-offerings of all women married to priests are burned. The meal offerings of priests are never eaten; rather they are always wholly burned on the altar. This is stated specifically in Leviticus 6:16. However, unlike a regular meal offering of a priest, the meal offering of the sotah married to the priest does have a handful taken out and turned into smoke on the altar, as described in mishnah two. Once the handful is taken out, the rest is burned upon the ashes. Since the priestly husband has part share in his wife’s offering, it cannot be eaten.

כהנת שנשאת לישראל – the daughter of a Kohen.

Introduction In the last clause of yesterday’s mishnah we learned that the meal offering of a priest is not eaten and neither is the meal offering of a sotah who is married to a priest. Our mishnah compares several laws concerning priests, their wives and their daughters.

מנחתה נאכלת – it is written (Leviticus 6:16): “So, too, every meal offering of a priest shall be a whole offering [it shall not be eaten].” A Kohen, but not the daughter of a Kohen, and similarly a daughter of a Priest who is a widow and–or a divorcee who brought a free-will donation of meal-offering is consumed.

The meal-offering of the daughter of an Israelite who is married to a priest is burned. But the meal-offering of the daughter of a priest who is married to an Israelite is eaten. With regard to the eating of the meal offering, what matters is whether or not she is married to a priest and not whether or not she is the daughter of a priest. If she is married to a priest she takes on his status and if she is married to an Israelite, she takes on his status.

כהנת מתחללת – from the priest’s due and from the priesthood if she was engaged in a sexual affair to those who are unfit, she never can return to her state of fitness ever.

What [differences are there in law] between a priest and a priest's daughter? The meal-offering of a priest’s daughter is eaten but the meal-offering of a priest is not eaten. The mishnah now begins to examine in general the difference in law between priests and their daughters. The meal offering of a priest’s daughter is eaten, even if she is not married to an Israelite. Only the meal-offering of a priest himself is not eaten.

כהן אינו מתחלל – if he married a divorcee, the priest’s wife’s illegitimately married to him or a harlot, but rather all the while that he is with her, he is unfit for Divine service. When he divorces her, he returns to his state of spiritual fitness, as it is written (Leviticus 21:15): “that he may not profane his offspring among his kin;” his progeny are profaned but he is not is not profaned.

A priest’s daughter may become deconsecrated, but a priest does not become deconsecrated. If a priest’s daughter has sexual intercourse with someone to whom she is prohibited to marry, she becomes a halalah, or “deconsecrated.” As a halalah, she can not subsequently marry a priest nor can she eat terumah. However, if a priest has sexual relations with someone prohibited to him, such as a divorcee, he does not become a halal, “deconsecrated.” The prohibited sexual relations do not impact his class status.

כהנת מטמאה למתים – as it is written (Leviticus 21:1): “[Speak to the priests,] the sons of Aaron,” and not the daughters of Aaron.

A priest’s daughter may defile herself by contact with the dead, but a priest may not defile himself by contact with the dead. Leviticus 21 teaches that priests may not defile themselves through contact with the dead, with the exception of their immediate family. These laws apply only to male priests and not to their daughters.

ואין כהנת אוכלת בקדשי קדשים – for the sin offering and guilt offering and meal-offering, with all of them it is written (Leviticus 6:11): “Only the males among Aaron’s descendants shall eat of it.”

A priest eats of the most holy things, but a priest’s daughter may not eat of the most holy things. Leviticus 6:22 and 7:6 state explicitly, “Only the males in the priestly line may eat of it: it is most holy.” Women may not therefore eat most holy things, which include certain sacrifices. However, they may eat other sacrifices which do not fall into this category.

האיש פורע ופורם – when he is afflicted with leprosy, he lets his hair grow and tears his garments, as it is written (Leviticus 13:44): “The man is leprous; he is unclean.” A man lets his hair grow and he tears his garments. A woman does not let her hair grow and she does not tear her garments.

Introduction Yesterday’s mishnah dealt with the differences between males and females born into priestly families; today’s mishnah deals with general differences in law between men and women. There are many differences in Jewish law between men and women that are not mentioned in this mishnah. The reason why the mishnah mentions some and not others is not entirely clear. Note that all of these rules have been taught elsewhere in the Mishnah. Our mishnah gathers them all up into one succinct source.

האיש מדיר בנו בנזיר – (this section of the Mishnah is also found in Tractate Nazir, Chapter 4, Mishnah 6) – His minor son and his Naziriteship falls upon him, and even when he grows up, and this Halakha is in [Tractate] Nazir and it has no support from the Torah.

What [differences are there in law] between a man and a woman?
A man [who has leprosy] rends his clothes and loosens his hair, but a woman does not rend her clothes and loosen her hair. This refers to the laws of leprosy in Leviticus 13:44-45. Verse 44 reads “ish”, or man. From here the rabbis conclude that the laws that follow are only for the leprous man and not for the leprous woman. However, the other laws for the leper are applicable to men and women equally.

האיש מגלח על נזירו אביו – (this section of the Mishnah is also found in Tractate Nazir, Chapter 5, Mishnah 7) – if his father made a vow in his Naziriteship and separated out his sacrifice (i.e., hair offering), and died, and his son was a Nazir, or that he took the vow of Naziriteship after the death of his father, the son shaves his head on the day of his fulfillment [of the vow] and he brings the sacrifices that his father separated out. And also this Halakha has no support.

A man may vow that his son will become a nazirite, but a woman may not vow that her son will become a nazirite. This law was already mentioned in Nazir 4:6. There we learned that a father may take a nazirite vow on behalf of his minor son, but that a mother may not.

האיש מקדש את בתו – (this section of the Mishnah is also found in Tractate Kiddushin, Chapter 2, Mishnah 1) – he accepts the betrothal of his minor daughter against her will, as it is written (Deuteronomy 22:16): “I gave this man my daughter to wife.”

A man can shave [with offerings set aside for] his father’s naziriteship but a woman cannot shave [with offerings set aside for] her father’s naziriteship. This law was mentioned in Nazir 4:7. For details see there.

האיש נסקל ערום – (this section of the Mishnah is also found in Tractate Sanhedrin, Chapter 6, Mishnayot 3-4) – as it is written (Leviticus 24:14): “and let [the whole community] stone him,” but it is impossible to state him and not her, for behold it is written (Deuteronomy 17:5): “you shall take the man or the woman [who did that wicked thing] out [to the public place],” but rather, him but not his clothing, but her (i.e., this woman) with her clothes.

A man may sell his daughter, but a woman may not sell her daughter. Exodus 21:6 says, “If a man (ish) shall sell his daughter as a slave.” As above, “ish” is interpreted to exclude females.

האיש נתלה – as it is written (Deuteronomy 21:22): “and you impale him on a stake,” him and not her.

A man may give his daughter in betrothal, but a woman may not give her daughter in betrothal. Deuteronomy 22:16 states, “And the father of the girl shall say, ‘I gave my daughter to this man’”. From here the mishnah learns that a father may betroth his daughter but not a mother.

האיש נמכר בגניבתו – as it is written (Exodus 22:2): “he shall be sold for his theft,” and not her theft.

A man is stoned naked, but a woman is not stoned naked. This issue was discussed in Sanhedrin 6:3-4. In this case the reason for the difference between men and women is modesty and not an interpretation of a biblical verse.

A man is hanged [after being put to death], but a woman is not hanged. This distinction between men and women was also taught in Sanhedrin 6:4. The reason is either exegetical Deuteronomy 21:22 states, “And you shall hang him upon a stake”. Alternatively, it is also a matter of modesty.

A man is sold for [to make restitution for] his theft, but a woman is not sold [to make restitution] for her theft. Exodus 22:2 states “If he [the thief] lacks the means [to make restitution] he shall be sold for his theft.” The rabbis understand “he” to exclude women. This distinction may also be based on issues of modesty. The rabbis did not allow for the existence of adult female Jewish slaves, for the assumption was that slave-women could not protect themselves from the sexual advances of their male owners or others. Therefore, they do not allow a female thief to be sold to make restitution for her theft.