Kiddushin 70

איש דבר מצות אין אשה לא ואי אשמעינן הא משום דאיכא איבוד נשמה חס רחמנא עלה אבל הנך תרתי אימא לא צריכא:

it applies only to man, who is subject to precepts, but not to woman, who is not subject to them.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Actually, of course, she is subject to certain precepts, as stated on 29a, but not liable to as many as man (Tosaf.) .');">¹</span> And if the last [alone] were intimated, - since there is loss of life, the All-Merciful had compassion upon her;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And imposed upon the owner the payment of ransom for the death of a woman as for that of a man.');">²</span>

חוץ מבל תקיף ובל תשחית כו': בשלמא בל תטמא למתים דכתיב (ויקרא כא, א) אמור אל הכהנים בני אהרן בני אהרן ולא בנות אהרן אלא בל תקיף ובל תשחית מנלן

but in the first two I might say that it is not so.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. that woman is the same as man.');">³</span> Thus they are [all] necessary.

דכתיב (ויקרא יט, כז) לא תקיפו פאת ראשכם ולא תשחית את פאת זקנך כל שישנו בהשחתה ישנו בהקפה והני נשי הואיל ולא איתנהו בהשחתה ליתנהו בהקפה

EXCEPTING, YE SHALL NOT ROUND [THE CORNER OF YOUR HEADS] NEITHER SHALT THOU MAR, etc. As for defiling oneself to the dead, that is well, because it is written: Speak unto the priests the sons of Aaron: [There shall none defile himself for the dead among his people]:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXI, 1.');">⁴</span> [hence], the sons of Aaron, but not the daughters of Aaron.

ומנלן דלא איתנהו בהשחתה איבעית אימא סברא דהא לא אית להו זקן ואיבעית אימא קרא דאמר קרא לא תקיפו פאת ראשכם ולא תשחית את פאת זקנך

But how do we know [that she is exempt from] the injunction against rounding [etc.] and marring [etc.]? - Because It is written, ye shall not round the corner of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XIX, 27.');">⁵</span> whoever is included in [the prohibition of] marring is included in [that of] rounding; but women, since they are not subject to [the prohibition of] marring, are not subject to [that of] rounding.

מדשני קרא בדיבוריה דא"כ ניכתוב רחמנא פאת זקנכם מאי זקנך זקנך ולא זקן אשתך

And how do we know that they are not subject to [the injunction against] marring? - Either by common sense, for they have no beard. Or, alternatively, [from] Scripture.

ולא והתניא זקן אשה והסריס שהעלו שער הרי הן כזקן לכל דבריהם מאי לאו להשחתה

For Scripture saith, ye shall not round the corner of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corner of thy beard; since Scripture varies its speech,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Using the plural in the one case and the singular in the other.');">⁶</span> for otherwise the Divine Law should write, 'the corner of your beards'; why, 'thy beard'?

אמר אביי להשחתה לא מצית אמרת דיליף פאת פאת מבני אהרן מה להלן נשים פטורות אף כאן נשים פטורות

[To intimate], 'thy beard,' but not thy wife's beard. Is it then not?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Is not a woman's beard subject to this prohibition?');">⁷</span>

ואי סבירא לן דכי כתב בני אהרן אכוליה ענינא כתיב נישתוק קרא מיניה ותיתי בק"ו ואנא אמינא ומה כהנים שריבה בהם הכתוב מצות יתירות בני אהרן ולא בנות אהרן ישראל לא כ"ש

But it was taught: The beard of a woman and that of a saris<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos.');">⁸</span> who grew hair, are like a [man's] beard in all matters.

אי לאו ג"ש הוה אמינא הפסק הענין

Surely that means in respect to marring? - Said Abaye: You cannot say that it is in respect to marring, for we learn 'corner' 'corner' from the sons of Aaron:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' With reference to Israelites in general: nor shalt thou mar the corner of thy beard; in the section relating to priests: neither shall they shave off the corner of their beard (Lev. XXI, 5) , it being assumed that the phrase 'sons of Aaron' of v. I applies to the whole section. The employment of 'corner' in both cases teaches similarity of law.');">⁹</span> just as there, women are exempt; so here too, women are exempt.

השתא נמי נימא הפסיק הענין ואי משום ג"ש מיבעי ליה לכדתניא (ויקרא כא, ה) לא יגלחו יכול גילחו במספריים יהיה חייב ת"ל (ויקרא יט, כז) לא תשחית

But if we hold that 'the sons of Aaron' is written with reference to the whole section,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. n. 5.');">¹⁰</span> let the Writ refrain<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'keep silent'.');">¹¹</span>

יכול לקטו במלקט וברהיטני יהא חייב ת"ל לא יגלחו הא כיצד גילוח שיש בה השחתה הוי אומר זה תער

from it,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the gezerah shawah of 'corner'.');">¹²</span> and it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. that 'thou shalt not mar' does not apply to women.');">¹³</span>

א"כ ניכתוב קרא את שבזקנך מאי פאת זקנך ש"מ תרתי

follows a fortiori. For I can argue, If [of] priests, upon whom Scripture imposes additional precepts, [we say] 'the sons of Aaron' but not the daughters of Aaron, how much more so of Israelites! - But for the gezerah shawah I would reason that the connection is broken.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., that 'the sons of Aaron' in v. I does not refer to 'they shall not shave the corner of their beards' in v. 5.');">¹⁴</span>

ואלא הא דתניא זקן האשה והסריס שהעלו שער הרי הן כזקן לכל דבריהם למאי הלכתא אמר מר זוטרא לטומאת נגעים

Then now too let us say that the connection is broken; and as for the gezerah shawah,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which appears to intimate that it is not.');">¹⁵</span> - that is required for what was taught: 'They shall not shave': I might think that if he shaves it with scissors,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., clipped the hair very close.');">¹⁶</span>

טומאת נגעים בהדיא כתיבא (ויקרא יג, כט) ואיש או אשה כי יהיה בו נגע בראש או בזקן אלא אמר מר זוטרא לטהרת נגעים

he is liable [for violating the injunction]: therefore it is stated, thou shalt not mar.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XIX, 27: thus the first verse quoted, Lev. XXI, 5, in reference to Priests, is illumined by the second in reference to Israelites. 'Mar' can only refer to the action of a razor, which removes the hair completely.');">¹⁷</span> I might think that if he plucks it [his hair] out with pincers or a remover, he is liable:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In respect of 'thou shalt not mar'.');">¹⁸</span>

טהרת נגעים נמי פשיטא כיון דבת טומאה היא בת טהרה היא איצטריך סד"א לצדדים כתיב איש או אשה כי יהיה בו נגע בראש או בזקן הדר אתאן לאיש קמ"ל

therefore it is stated: 'they shall not shave'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In reference to priests, and this illumines the injunction 'thou shalt not mar'. Plucking hairs one by one is not shaving.');">¹⁹</span> How then is it meant?

איסי תני אף בל יקרחו נשים פטורות מ"ט דאיסי דדריש הכי (דברים יד, א) בנים אתם לה' אלהיכם לא תתגודדו ולא תשימו קרחה בין עיניכם למת כי עם קדוש אתה לה' אלהיך בנים ולא בנות לקרחה

Shaving which involves marring, viz. , with a razor.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Now since the gezerah shawah is wanted for this, I may still say 'the sons of Aaron' in Lev. XXI, 1, does not refer to 'and they shall not shave the corner of their beards' in v. 5, the connection being broken.');">²⁰</span> If so,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the gezerah shawah merely defines 'shaving' and 'marring', but does not shew to whom they apply.');">²¹</span>

אתה אומר לקרחה או אינו אלא לגדידה כשהוא אומר כי עם קדוש אתה לה' אלהיך הרי גדידה אמור הא מה אני מקיים בנים ולא בנות לקרחה

let Scripture write, ['ye shall not round the corner of your heads, neither shalt thou mar] that of thy beard'? why [repeat] 'the corner of thy beard'?

ומה ראית לרבות את הגדידה ולהוציא את הקרחה מרבה אני את הגדידה שישנה במקום השער ושלא במקום שער ומוציא אני את הקרחה שאינה אלא במקום שער

Hence both are inferred.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., definition and scope.');">²²</span> Then when it was taught: 'The beard of a woman and that of a saris who grew hair, are like a [man's] beard in all respects': to what law [does it refer]? - Said Mar Zutra: To the uncleanliness of leprosy.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The symptoms of leprosy of the skin differ from those of the hair; cf. Lev. XIII, 1-17 with vv. 29-37. The Baraitha teaches that if a woman or a saris grows a beard, though normally their chins are free from hair, the test of leprosy are the symptoms of the latter, not of the former,');">²³</span>

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]