Makkot 20bמכות כ׳ ב
The William Davidson Talmudתלמוד מהדורת ויליאם דוידסון
Save "Makkot 20b"
Toggle Reader Menu Display Settings
20bכ׳ ב

אלא בחדא התראה מי מחייב והתנן נזיר שהיה שותה יין כל היום אינו חייב אלא אחת אמרו לו אל תשתה אל תשתה והוא שותה חייב על כל אחת ואחת לא צריכא דסך חמש אצבעותיו נשא ואותבינהו בבת אחת דהויא ליה התראה לכל חדא וחדא

Rather, say that he created five bald spots with one forewarning; is one liable in that case? But didn’t we learn in a mishna (21a): A nazirite who was drinking wine all day is liable to receive only one set of lashes; if onlookers said to him: Do not drink, do not drink, forewarning him several times, and he drinks after each forewarning, he is liable to receive lashes for each and every drink. The Gemara answers: No, this halakha is necessary only with regard to one who, after one forewarning, smeared his five fingers in a depilatory agent [nasha] and then placed his fingers simultaneously on his hair, thereby creating five bald spots, as in that case, it is tantamount to a forewarning for each and every bald spot that he created. The novel element is that each bald spot is an independent transgression.

וכמה שיעור קרחה רב הונא אומר כדי שיראה מראשו רבי יוחנן אומר משום ר"א ברבי שמעון כגריס (כתנאי כמה שיעור קרחה כגריס) אחרים אומרים כדי שיראה מראשו

§ The Gemara asks: And how much is the measure of a bald spot for which one is liable? Rav Huna says: It must be of sufficient size so that bald skin will be visible on his head. Rabbi Yoḥanan says in the name of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon: It is the size of a Cilician bean [kigeris]. The Gemara comments: This amoraic dispute is parallel to a dispute between tanna’im: And how much is the measure of a bald spot? It is the size of a Cilician bean. Aḥerim say: It must be of sufficient size so that bald skin will be visible on his head.

אמר רב יהודה בר חביבא פליגי בה תלתא תנאי חד אומר כגריס וחד אומר כדי שיראה מראשו וחד אומר כשתי שערות ואיכא דמפיק שתי שערות ומעייל בכעדשה וסימנך בהרת כגריס ומחיה בכעדשה

Rav Yehuda bar Ḥaviva said that there are three tanna’im who disagree concerning this matter. One says: A spot the size of a Cilician bean; and one says: A spot of sufficient size so that bald skin will be visible on his head; and one says: A spot that is the measure of two hairs. And there is one who removed the opinion that it is the measure of two hairs, and inserted an opinion that it is the size of a lentil. And your mnemonic to remember the different opinions is from a mishna with regard to the halakhot of leprosy (Nega’im 6:5): The measure of impurity for a snow-white leprous mark [baheret] is a Cilician bean, and the measure of impurity for the raw flesh that grows within the baheret is a lentil.

תנא הנוטל מלא פי הזוג בשבת חייב וכמה מלא פי הזוג אמר רב יהודה שתים והתניא לקרחה שתים אימא וכן לקרחה שתים

In a related halakha, the Sages taught: One who removes a scissorsful [melo pi hazug] of hair from his head on Shabbat is liable. And how much is a scissorsful? Rav Yehuda says: Two hairs. The Gemara asks: But isn’t it taught in a baraita: For a bald spot the measure is two hairs, from which it may be inferred that the measure with regard to labor on Shabbat is different than for a bald spot. The Gemara answers: Emend the baraita and say: And likewise with regard to a bald spot the measure is two hairs, indicating that the measure for Shabbat and the measure for a bald spot are the same.

תניא נמי הכי הנוטל מלא פי הזוג בשבת חייב וכמה מלא פי הזוג שתים רבי אליעזר אומר אחת ומודים חכמים לרבי אליעזר במלקט לבנות מתוך שחורות אפילו אחת שהוא חייב ודבר זה אפילו בחול אסור משום שנאמר (דברים כב, ה) לא ילבש גבר שמלת אשה:

That is also taught in a baraita: One who removes a scissorsful of hair on Shabbat is liable. And how much is a scissorsful? It is two hairs. Rabbi Eliezer says: One hair. And the Rabbis concede to Rabbi Eliezer in the case of one who removes white hairs from black ones, even if he removes one hair, that he is liable. Since his intent was to remove that particular hair, its removal constitutes a complete action. The Gemara adds: And for a man, that matter is prohibited even during the week, due to the fact that it is stated: “Neither shall a man don a woman’s garment” (Deuteronomy 22:5). Removal of white hairs for the purposes of beautification is characteristic of women, and it is prohibited for a man to perform those actions.

והמקיף פאת ראשו וכו': ת"ר פאת ראשו סוף ראשו ואיזהו סוף ראשו זה המשוה צדעיו לאחורי אזנו ולפדחתו

§ The mishna teaches: And one who rounds the edge of his head is flogged. The Sages taught: The edge of his head is the extremity of his head. And what is the extremity of his head? This is a reference to one who levels the hairline of his temples to the hairline behind his ear and to the hairline of his forehead. There is no hair behind the ears or on the forehead. One who removes the hair from the temples so that they are like those areas violates the prohibition against rounding the edges of his head.

תני תנא קמיה דרב חסדא אחד המקיף ואחד הניקף לוקה אמר ליה מאן דאכיל תמרי בארבילא לקי דאמר לך מני רבי יהודה היא דאמר לאו שאין בו מעשה לוקין עליו

The tanna taught a baraita before Rav Ḥisda: Both one who rounds the edges of his head and one for whom the edges of his head are rounded are flogged. Rav Ḥisda said to him: Is one who eats dates that are in a sieve [arbeila] flogged? By analogy, if a person rounded the edges of another’s head, why should the person whose head was rounded receive lashes? He performed no action. Rav Ḥisda proceeded to explain to the tanna: In response to one who says to you: Who is the tanna of the baraita? Say that it is Rabbi Yehuda, who says: In the case of a prohibition that does not involve an action, one is flogged for its violation.

רבא אומר במקיף לעצמו ודברי הכל רב אשי אומר במסייע ודברי הכל:

Rava says: This baraita can be explained as referring to one who rounds the edges of his head for himself, and he is liable both for rounding the edges of his head and for having the edges of his head rounded; and everyone agrees that he is flogged because he performed an action. Rav Ashi says: This baraita can be explained as referring to a case where the one for whom the edges of his head are being rounded assists the person rounding his head, by repositioning his head to facilitate that rounding, and everyone agrees that he is flogged.

והמשחית פאת זקנו: ת"ר פאת זקנו סוף זקנו ואיזהו סוף זקנו שבולת זקנו:

§ The mishna teaches: And one who mars the edge of his beard is flogged. The Sages taught: The edge of his beard is the extremity of his beard. And what is the extremity of his beard? It is the stalk of his beard, i.e., the five edges of the beard enumerated in the mishna where hair collects in one spot, like grain on stalks.

והמשרט שריטה אחת וכו': ת"ר (ויקרא יט, כח) ושרט יכול אפילו שרט על ביתו שנפל ועל ספינתו שטבעה בים ת"ל (ויקרא יט, כח) לנפש אינו חייב אלא על המת בלבד ומנין למשרט חמש שריטות על מת אחד שהוא חייב על כל אחת ואחת ת"ל ושרט לחייב על כל שריטה ושריטה

§ The mishna teaches: And one who cuts one incision in a display of mourning over the dead is flogged. The Sages taught a halakhic midrash on the verse: “And an incision for the soul you shall not place in your flesh” (Leviticus 19:28). Had the verse stated only: “And an incision,” one might have thought that this prohibition applies to any incision cut in sorrow, even if he cut an incision in sorrow over his house that collapsed, or over his ship that sunk at sea. Therefore, the verse states: “For the soul,” from which it is derived that he is liable for an incision in mourning only for the dead alone. And from where is it derived that one who cuts five incisions in mourning over one dead person is liable for each and every incision? The verse states: “And an incision” to render him liable for each and every incision.

רבי יוסי אומר מנין למשרט שריטה אחת על ה' מתים שהוא חייב על כל אחת ואחת ת"ל לנפש לחייב על כל נפש ונפש

Rabbi Yosei says: From where is it derived concerning one who cuts one incision in mourning over five dead people, that he is liable for each and every person for whom he cut that incision? The verse states: “For the soul,” to render him liable for each and every dead person.

והא אפיקתיה לביתו שנפל ולספינתו שטבעה בים

The Gemara asks: But didn’t you already derive from the term “for the soul” an exemption for one who cut an incision in sorrow over his house that collapsed, or over his ship that sunk at sea?