Kiddushin 35b (לה:) — the Talmud in English

But

with regard to the law that the owner of the ox that kills is liable for

ransom—

say

we might have thought that only when it kills

a man, as he is subject to mitzvot, is he liable,

but when it kills

a woman,

who is not obligated in mitzvot like a man,

he is not

liable for ransom. Therefore, the Torah had to inform us that a woman is equal to a man even with regard to a goring ox that kills a woman, for whose owner there is liability for ransom.

And had it informed us of only this [if the Torah had informed us only with regard to liability for capital punishment],

we might have thought that only with regard to liability for capital punishment is a woman equal to a man, so that one who kills her is liable to receive the death penalty, and the owner of an ox accustomed to goring that kills her is liable for ransom,

because there is loss of a life,

and therefore the verse imposed liability for ransom, since

the Merciful One took pity on her [the woman].

[the woman].

But

with regard to

these other two [the two matters]—

punishments and monetary law—

say [we might have thought] that

[we would have said] that

not

is a woman equal to a man. Therefore,

it is necessary

to inform us that they are equal both with regard to punishments and monetary law, and also with regard to the fact that one who kills her becomes liable to receive the death penalty.

We learned in the Mishna:

Except for the prohibitions: “You shall not round” and “You shall not destroy,”

and “You shall not become impure for the dead,” from which women are exempt.

And we raised the following question concerning it:

Granted,

with regard to the prohibition of

“You shall not become impure for the dead,”

women are exempt because

it is written [Leviticus 21:1]:

[Leviticus 21:1]:

“Say to the priests, the sons of Aaron,”

and they expound:

“The sons of Aaron”—

and not the daughters of Aaron.

But

with regard to the prohibition of

“You shall not round,”

which prohibits shaving and leveling the beginning of the hairline at the temples of the forehead with the area behind the ear, and shaving the hair between them,

and

likewise with regard to the prohibition of

“You shall not destroy,”

from where do we know that women are exempt?

And we explain:

It is written [Leviticus 19:27]:

[Leviticus 19:27]:

“You shall not round the corners of your heads, and you shall not destroy the corner of your beard,”

and they expound:

Anyone included in the prohibition of destroying is included in the prohibition of rounding. And these women,

[these women],

since they are not included

[they are not included]

in the

prohibition of

destroying

of the beard—

they are not included

[they are not included]

in the

prohibition of

rounding

of the head.

And from where do we know that they are not included

[and from where do we know that they are not included]

in the

prohibition of

destroying?

If you wish, say: It is based on reasoning, for they do not have

[since they do not have]

a beard.

And if you wish, say: It is based on a verse,

as the verse says: “You shall not round the corners of your heads, and you shall not destroy the corner of your beard.”

Since the verse changed its wording [as evidenced by the fact that the verse changed its wording], at first, with regard to the prohibition of rounding the head, it spoke in the plural, whereas afterward, with regard to the prohibition of destroying the beard, it spoke in the singular .

Therefore, we expound:

If so,

if women too were liable,

the Merciful One should have written

[that the Torah should have written] in the plural, as earlier:

“The corners of your beards.”

What is the reason that it says “your beard”

in the singular? To expound and exclude: specifically,

“your beard”

is prohibited to destroy—

but not your wife’s beard,

even if she grew a beard and destroyed it .

And we challenge this:

Is that so?

Is a woman who has grown a beard not included in the prohibition of destroying the beard?

But it was taught in a beraita: A woman’s beard and the beard of a eunuch that grew hair—

are considered a beard for all their matters.

What, is it not

the intention of the beraita

with regard to destroying,

that women too are included in the prohibition of destroying the beard?

And we answer:

Abaye said: You cannot say that it is with regard to destroying!

It is impossible to say that they are included in the prohibition of destroying the beard.

Since

it is derived

[they learn] by means of a gzera shava,

“corner” and “corner” from the sons of Aaron,

as it is written with regard to Israelites, “the corner of your beard,” and with regard to priests it is written, “and they shall not shave the corner of their beard.”

And they expound:

Just as there,

with regard to priests,

women are exempt,

since it is written there in the passage “the sons of Aaron,” to exclude the daughters of Aaron [and the Gemara now assumes that the exclusion of the daughters of Aaron applies to all the prohibitions written in that passage],

so too here,

with regard to Israelites,

women are exempt.

And we challenge this:

And if we hold

[if we hold]

that when it is written

[that what is written] in the passage concerning priests,

“the sons of Aaron,”

to exclude the daughters of Aaron,

it is written with regard to the entire passage

[it is stated with regard to all the matters written in that passage],

why does the Torah need to inform us through a gzera shava?

Let the verse be silent concerning it,

concerning the gzera shava of “corner” and “corner” to exclude women from the prohibition of destroying the beard stated with regard to Israelites,

and let it come

[and let us learn this law]

by means of a kal va-chomer

from priestesses .

And I will say

[and we will say] this kal va-chomer:

Just as with priests, for whom the verse added many additional mitzvot,

the verse nevertheless excluded, so that specifically

the sons of Aaron

are commanded regarding the prohibition of destroying the beard—

but not the daughters of Aaron.

If so,

Israelites,

for whom the verse did not add so many mitzvot,

all the more so

the daughters of Israel should be excluded from the prohibition of destroying the beard.

And we answer:

Were it not

that the Torah informed us of the

gzera shava

“corner” and “corner” to exclude women from the prohibition of destroying the beard,

we might have thought

[we might have thought] that what is written in the passage concerning priests, “the sons of Aaron,” to exclude the daughters of Aaron, applies only to the prohibition of impurity written immediately afterward , and not to the prohibition of destroying the beard written several verses later [in verse 5], since the verse

interrupted

the

matter

in the interim, as with “he shall become impure for her” [there, verse 3], which is written in the interim.

And we challenge this:

Now

[now] that we derive it by means of a gzera shava,

let us also say

[let us also say] that the verse

interrupted the matter

between the exclusion “the sons of Aaron” and not the daughters of Aaron, and the prohibition of destroying the beard, so that the exclusion applies only to the prohibition for priests to become impure for the dead, and not to the prohibition of destroying the beard.

And if it is because of the gzera shava

that was written in order to derive from it the exclusion of women from the prohibition of destroying the beard among Israelites, one can say that the gzera shava was not written in order to exclude women, but

it is needed

[it is necessary] for another exposition.

As it was taught:

for it is written there in the passage concerning priests [Leviticus 21:5]: “

and the corner of their beard

they shall not shave”—

one might have thought that if they shaved it with scissors they would be liable

for this prohibition.

The verse therefore states:

with regard to Israelites [Leviticus 19:27],

“You shall not destroy

the corner of your beard”

to teach that one is liable only if he shaved the beard in a manner of destroying, removing the hair down to its root [which is not accomplished with scissors].

One might have thought that if he plucked

the hair of the beard

with a tweezer

[with pincers, like a small pair of tongs used by sword polishers to smooth the sword sheath],

or with a plane

[with a carpenter’s plane, a tool used to smooth beams and boards],

he would be liable.

The verse therefore states:

in the passage concerning priests, “and the corner of their beard

they shall not shave,”

to teach that one is liable only if he shaved the beard in the manner of shaving, and plucking with a tweezer or shaving with a plane is not the manner of shaving.

How, then,

is one liable for shaving the beard?

When he removes the hair by means of

shaving that involves destroying; that is to say, this is

shaving with

a razor

that removes the hair down to its root.

And this teaching requires the gzera shava of “corner” and “corner,” in order to derive the prohibition of shaving the beard in the passage concerning Israelites from the prohibition of shaving the beard in the passage concerning priests, and vice versa. But from where would we know to derive from the gzera shava the exclusion of women from the prohibition of shaving the beard?

And we answer: If the gzera shava was not written in order to teach that women are excluded from this prohibition,

then,

it would have sufficed if

the verse had written

“You shall not destroy

that which is in your beard,”

and it would be considered as though “corner” were written, since “corner” is already written at the beginning of the verse: “You shall not round the corner of your head, and you shall not destroy the corner of your beard.” From the fact that it would have been written with regard to the beard, “that which is in your beard,” rather than “your beard,” we would know that the reference is to the corner; it would be considered as though it were written, “You shall not destroy the corners that are in your beard.” We could still derive by means of the gzera shava of “corner” and “corner,” from the passage concerning Israelites to the passage concerning priests, that the prohibition applies only when one performs shaving that involves destroying; alternatively, we would derive it by means of a binyan av from the shaving of the beard of priests to the shaving of the beard of Israelites, and vice versa.

What

[what is the reason for]

“the corner of your beard,” which is written ?

This proves that “corner” with regard to the beard has been expounded, because the gzera shava was written to teach

two matters:

a. To teach the manner of liability for shaving the beard, deriving it from Israelites to priests and from priests to Israelites.

b. With regard to the exclusion of “the sons of Aaron” and not the daughters of Aaron: The gzera shava teaches that the passage concerning Israelites is equated with everything stated in the passage concerning priests. Since “the sons of Aaron” is written in the passage concerning priests to exclude the daughters of Aaron, we learn by means of the gzera shava to exclude women from the prohibition of shaving the beard .

And we challenge this: If women were excluded from the prohibition of shaving the beard, then

what is the meaning of that which was taught

[that which we learned in a beraita]:

“A woman’s beard and the beard of a eunuch that grew hair—

they are considered a beard for all their matters”; for what halakhic purpose

[with regard to which halakha was this stated]?

Mar Zutra said: With regard to

the matter of

the impurity of afflictions

it was stated!

The signs of afflictions in a place of hair differ from the signs of afflictions in a place of flesh. In afflictions of the skin of the flesh, white hair is considered a sign of the affliction, whereas in a lesion on the head or beard, yellow hair is considered a sign of the lesion. The beraita teaches that if a woman grows hair on her beard, that hair is considered beard hair with regard to the signs of the affliction, which follow the law of a lesion of the beard and not the law of afflictions of the skin of the flesh.

And we challenge this: How can one say that the beraita teaches that a woman’s beard is considered a beard with regard to the impurity of afflictions? For with regard to

the impurity of afflictions, it is explicitly written

concerning a woman’s beard, as it says [Leviticus 13:29]:

“When a man or a woman has an affliction on the head or on the beard!”

Rather, Mar Zutra said:

The beraita was stated

with regard to

the matter of

the purification from afflictions,

for when she becomes pure, she must also shave the beard, as is the law of the purification of a leper through shaving and birds.

And we challenge this: With regard to

the purification from afflictions as well, it is obvious

that a woman’s beard is considered a beard,

since she is subject to impurity,

as an affliction in the hair of a woman’s beard is considered a lesion of the beard; if so, it is obvious that also with regard to purification, a woman’s beard

is subject to purification

and is considered a beard with regard to purification.

And we answer:

It was necessary

for the beraita to teach, with regard to the impurity of afflictions, that the signs of lesions of a woman’s beard are equated with the signs of a man’s beard.

And what we challenged—that it is explicitly written in the verse—is not difficult, because

it might have entered your mind

that the verse

is written in a bifurcated manner:

the word “woman” written in the verse refers only to lesions of the head,

“When a man or a woman has an affliction on the head,”

whereas

“or on the beard,”

which is written afterward,

returns to refer to a man

and not to a woman.

This teaches us that

the beraita teaches that a woman's beard is considered a beard for all its halakhot.

Issi teaches: Also

with regard to the prohibition of

making a bald spot—

women are exempt.

What is the reason for Issi?

Because

he expounds as follows:

It is written [Deuteronomy 14:1–2]:

“You are children of the Lord your God; you shall not cut yourselves

[you shall not make an incision over the dead ]

nor make a baldness between your eyes for the dead, for you are a holy people to the Lord your God,”

and Issi expounds the exclusion:

“Children” and not daughters, with regard to

the prohibition of

making a bald spot

that is mentioned after the prohibition of cutting oneself.

You say

that the exclusion is stated

with regard to making a bald spot, or perhaps it is not

[perhaps the exclusion] written

only with regard to cutting oneself,

which is written immediately after the exclusion of “children” and not daughters; and from where do we know that the exclusion applies to the prohibition of making a bald spot, which is written after the prohibition of cutting oneself?

And we answer:

When it says

in the following verse:

“For you are a holy people to the Lord your God,”

women too are included in the term “people”; if so,

cutting oneself is thereby stated,

as women are included in the prohibition.

Then how do I understand

the verse’s exclusion of

“children” and not daughters?

We interpret it as referring to

making a bald spot.

And we challenge this:

What have you seen that leads you to include cutting oneself

on the basis of the verse “for you are a holy people,” which includes women as well,

and to exclude making a bald spot,

so that women are not included in the term “people”? After all, the exclusion applies to the prohibition of cutting oneself exactly as it applies to the prohibition of making a bald spot.

And we answer:

I include cutting oneself

under the term “people,” so that women too are included in the prohibition, because it is a stringent prohibition,

as it applies

to the prohibition of cutting oneself

both at the place of the hair and

also

not at the place of the hair; whereas I exclude making a bald spot,

as women are excluded from the prohibition by the exclusion of “children” and not daughters, because it is a less stringent prohibition,

as it applies

to the prohibition of making a bald spot

only at the place of the hair .

And we challenge this:

But perhaps

[one could say] that the exclusion

“children” and not daughters

is stated

both with regard to making a bald spot and with regard to cutting oneself; and when it says, “For you are a holy people to the Lord your God,”

it is to include women

in

the prohibition of

scratching oneself,

as that is what is written!

[The difference between scratching oneself and cutting oneself is that one is done by hand and the other with an instrument.]