Halakhah for Kiddushin 70:19

ואימא בנים ולא בנות בין לקרחה בין לגדידה וכי כתב כי עם קדוש אתה לה' אלהיך בשריטה הוא דכתיב קסבר איסי שריטה וגדידה

'The uncleanliness of leprosy!' But that is explicitly stated: If a man or a woman have a plague upon the head or the beard?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XIII, 29. Why should the Baraitha state it?');">²⁴</span> - But, said Mar Zutra, [it is] in respect of purification from leprosy.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When a woman becomes clean from leprosy of the beard, she must undergo the same ritual as a man, viz., the beard must be shaved off (v. 33) - S. Strashun.');">²⁵</span> But purification from leprosy too is obvious; since she is liable to uncleanliness [through her beard], she needs [the same] purification! - It is necessary:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Baraitha refers to the uncleanliness of leprosy, as first stated, yet it is necessary.');">²⁶</span> I might have assumed, it is written with separate subjects:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'on (different) sides'.');">²⁷</span> [thus:] 'If a man or a woman have a plague upon the head'; while 'or the beard' reverts to the man [alone]; therefore we are informed [otherwise]. Issi taught: Women are exempt from the injunction against baldness too.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Lev. XXI, 5.');">²⁸</span> What is Issi's reason? - Because he interprets thus: Ye are sons of the Lord your God: ye shall not cut yourselves, nor make any baldness between your eyes for the dead. For thou art an holy people unto the Lord thy God:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XIV, 1f.');">²⁹</span> [the implied limitation] 'sons' but not daughters [is] in respect of baldness. You say, in respect of baldness; yet perhaps i is not so, but rather in respect of cutting? When it is said: 'For thou art an holy people unto the Lord thy God,' cutting is referred to;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For 'people' includes men and women; since this is the reason of the previous injunctions, one at least must apply to women too.');">³⁰</span> hence, how can I interpret [the implication] 'sons' but not daughters? In respect to baldness. And why do you prefer<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'what (reason) do you see?'');">³¹</span> to include cutting and exclude baldness? I include cutting which is possible both where there is hair and where there is no hair, and I exclude baldness which is possible only in the place of hair.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the prohibition of baldness is necessarily more limited, it is logical that the exclusion of daughters shall relate thereto.');">³²</span> Yet perhaps 'sons' but not daughters applies to both baldness and cutting, while 'For thou art an holy people unto the Lord thy God' relates to incision!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev, XXI, 5: and they (sc. the priests) shall not make any incision (Heb. sarateth, E.V. cuttings) in their flesh. It is now assumed that making incisions (seritah) is not identical with cutting (gedidah) , one being by hand and the other with a knife.');">³³</span> - Issi holds that incision [seritah] and cutting [gedidah]

Explore halakhah for Kiddushin 70:19. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.