Commentary for Shabbat 188:11

וכן הגודלת כו': גודלת כוחלת ופוקסת משום מאי מחייבא אמר רבי אבין א"ר יוסי בר' חנינא גודלת משום אורגת כוחלת משום כותבת פוקסת משום טווה אמרו רבנן קמיה דרבי אבהו וכי דרך אריגה בכך וכי דרך כתיבה בכך וכי דרך טויה בכך אלא א"ר אבהו לדידי מפרשא לי מיניה דר' יוסי בר' חנינא

[hence] he informs us [otherwise]. LIKEWISE HIS HAIR, etc. It was taught: If one plucks out a full scissors' edge [of hair], he is culpable. And how much is a full scissors' edge? Said Rab Judah: Two [hairs]. But it was taught: But in respect of baldness [the standard is] two?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Deut. XIV, 1: the prohibition is infringed by the plucking of two hairs. The conjunction waw may mean, either 'and' or 'but'; it is understood in the latter sense here, and thus implies that there is a different standard for the Sabbath, since both statements are part of the same Baraitha. ');">¹⁹</span> — Say, and likewise in respect of baldness, [the standard is] two. It was taught likewise: If one plucks out a full scissors' edge [of hair] on the Sabbath, he is culpable. And how much is a full scissors' edge? Two. R. Eliezer said: One. But the Sages agree with R. Eliezer in the case of one who picks out white hairs from black ones, that he is culpable even for one;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For its removal makes him look younger; hence it is regarded as a labour. ');">²⁰</span> and this is interdicted even on weekdays, for it is said, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. XXII, 5. This is interpreted as a general prohibition of effeminacy. which includes the attempt to make oneself look young by such methods. ');">²¹</span> It was taught: R. Simeon b. Eleazar said: As for a nail the greater part of which is severed,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., it is hanging and nearly torn off. ');">²²</span> and shreds [of skin] the largest portions of which are severed [from the body], — by hand it is permitted [wholly to remove them]; (if one severs them] with a utensil, he is liable to a sin-offering. Is there anything which [if done] with a utensil renders one liable to a sin-offering, yet is permitted by hand at the very outset?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Surely not! ');">²³</span> — This is its meaning: If the greater portions thereof are severed by hand, it is permitted [to remove them wholly]; if done with a utensil one is not culpable, yet it is prohibited. If the greater portions thereof are not severed, [if wholly removed] by hand one is not culpable. yet it is prohibited: with a utensil, one is liable to a sin-offering. Rab Judah said: The <i>halachah</i> is as R. Simeon b. Eleazar. Said Rabbah b. Bar Hanah in R. Johanan's name: Providing they are severed towards the top.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Near the nail. ');">²⁴</span> so that they pain him. LIKEWISE IF [A WOMAN] PLAITS, etc. She who plaits, paints or rouges, on what score is she culpable? — R. Abin said in the name of R. Jose son of R. Hanina: She who plaits on the score of weaving; she who paints on the score of writing; she who rouges on account of spinning.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The rouge was drawn out in thread-like lengths, and thus it resembled spinning; v. Tosaf. M.K. 9b s.v. [H]. ');">²⁵</span> Said the Rabbis before R. Abbahu: Are then weaving, writing, and spinning done in this way? Rather said R. Abbahu: R. Jose son of R. Hanina's [statement] was explained to me [thus]:

Explore commentary for Shabbat 188:11. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.