Yevamot

since either of them is a peculiar creature; the slave, too, because owing to the terumah  he might be raised to the priesthood;  the uncircumcised and the unclean also, owing to their repulsiveness; and the priest who married a woman unsuitable for him, as a penalty. But why should not a woman [be given a share of terumah]? — On this question R. Papa and R. Huna son of R. Joshua differ. One explains: Owing [to possible abuse by] a divorced woman;  and the other explains: Owing to [the necessity of avoiding] privacy between the sexes.  What is the practical difference between them? — The practical difference between them is the case of a threshing-floor that is near a town but is unfrequented by people,  or one that is distant [from a town] but frequented by people. 'In the case of all these, however, [terumah] may be sent to their houses, with the exception of the one who is levitically unclean and one who married a woman who is unsuitable for him'. [May terumah], then, be sent to the uncircumcised?  What is the reason! [Is it] because he is a victim of circumstances? The man who is levitically unclean is also a victim of circumstances!  — The force of circumstances in the former case is great;  in the latter, the force is not so great. Our Rabbis taught: Neither to a slave nor to a woman may a share in terumah be given at the threshing-floors. In places, however, where a share is given. It is to be given to the woman first, and she is immediately dismissed. What can this mean?  — It is this that was meant: The  poor mans tithe which is distributed at home  is to be given to the woman first.  What is the reason? — That the degradation [of the woman may be avoided]. Raba said: Formerly, when a man and a woman  came before me for a legal decision, I used to dispose of the man's lawsuit first, because I thought a man is subject to the fulfilment of all the commandments;  since, however, I heard this,  I dispose of a woman's lawsuit first. Why? In order [to save her from] degradation. IF WHEN THEY GREW UP, THE INTERCHANGED CHILDREN etc. [It states] THEY EMANCIPATED. [Implying] only  if they wished, but if they did not wish they need not [emancipate one another]! But why? Neither of them could marry either a bondwoman  or a free woman!  Raba replied: Read: Pressure is brought to bear upon them so that they emancipate one another. THE RESTRICTIONS … ARE IMPOSED UPON THEM. In what respect?  — R. Papa replied: In respect of their meal-offering. A handful  must be taken from it,  as of a meal-offering of an Israelite, but it may not be eaten,  as is the case with a meal-offering of the priests.  But how [is one to proceed]? The handful is offered up separately and the remnants are also offered up separately. But [surely] there is to be applied here the Scriptural deduction that any offering a portion of which had been put on the fire of the altar  is subject to the prohibition you shall not burn!  — R. Judah son of R. Simeon b. Pazzi replied: They are burned as wood,  in accordance with a ruling of R. Eleazar. For it was taught: R. Eleazar said, For it sweet savour  you may not offer them;  you may offer them, however, as mere  wood.  This is satisfactory according to R. Eleazar, what, however, can be said according to the Rabbis?  — One proceeds in accordance with a ruling of R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon. For it was taught: R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon said: The handful is offered up separately and the remnants are scattered over the enclosure of the sacrificial ashes.  And even the Rabbis differ from R. Eleazar only in respect of a priestly sinner's meal-offering which is suitable for offering up;  but here,  even the Rabbis agree. MISHNAH. IF A WOMAN DID NOT WAIT THREE MONTHS AFTER [SEPARATION  FROM] HER HUSBAND, AND MARRIED AGAIN AND GAVE BIRTH [TO A SON], AND IT IS UNKNOWN WHETHER IT IS A NINE-MONTHS CHILD BY THE FIRST HUSBAND OR A SEVEN-MONTHS CHILD BY THE SECOND, IF SHE HAD OTHER SONS BY THE FIRST HUSBAND AND OTHER SONS BY THE SECOND, THESE MUST SUBMIT TO HALIZAH  BUT MAY NOT CONTRACT WITH HER LEVIRATE MARRIAGE.  AND HE, IN RESPECT OF THEIR WIDOWS,  LIKEWISE, SUBMITS TO HALIZAH  BUT MAY NOT CONTRACT LEVIRATE MARRIAGE.