Kiddushin 35b — the Talmud in English

But

regarding the law that the owner of the ox that kills is liable for

ransom—

say

we might have said that only in the case of one that kills

a man, for “the mitzvot,” there is [liability],

liable for ransom, but one that kills

a woman,

who is not obligated in the mitzvot like a man,

is not

liable for ransom. Therefore, the Torah had to inform us that a woman is equal to a man also with regard to an ox habituated to kill a woman, whose owner is liable for ransom.

And if this

the Torah had informed us only regarding liability for death, we would have said that only with regard to liability for death is a woman equal to a man, so that the one who kills her is liable to death, and the owner of an ox habituated to kill her is liable for ransom,

because there is loss of life,

and therefore Scripture made him liable for ransom, because

the Merciful One has compassion upon her

[upon the woman].

But

with regard to

these two

[the two of these—punishments and monetary laws],

say

[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 with regard to monetary laws, and also with regard to the matter that one who kills her becomes liable to death.

We learned in the Mishna:

except for “you shall not round” and “you shall not destroy”

and “you shall not defile yourselves for the dead,” for women are exempt.

And we raised it:

Granted,

with regard to the prohibition of

“you shall not defile yourselves for the dead,”

women are exempt because

it is written

[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,”

that it is forbidden to shave and make equal the beginning of the growth of the hair of the temples of the forehead with the back of the ear, and to shave 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]:

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

and they expound:

Anyone included in [the prohibition of] destruction is included in [the prohibition of] rounding. But these women

[and these women],

since they are not included

[they are not included]

in

the prohibition of

destruction

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

destruction?

If you wish, say: reasoning, for they do not have

[for they do not have]

a beard.

And if you wish, say: Scripture ,

for Scripture says: “You shall not round the corner of your head, and you shall not destroy the corner of your beard.”

Since Scripture changed its wording [from the fact that Scripture 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,

that women too are liable,

the Merciful One should write

[that the Torah should write] in the plural, as earlier,

“the corner of your beards.”

What is the meaning of “your beard”

in the singular? To expound and exclude: specifically

your beard

is prohibited in destruction—

but not your wife’s beard,

even if she grew a beard and destroyed it .

And we object:

And not?

Is it so that a woman for whom a beard has grown is not included in the prohibition of destroying the beard?

But it was taught in a beraita: “The beard of a woman and of a eunuch, when they have grown hair,”—

they are like a beard in all their respects.

What, is it not

the intention of the beraita

with regard to destruction,

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 destruction!

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

Since

it is learned

[they learn] by a gzera shava

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

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

And they expound:

Just as there,

concerning priests,

women are exempt,

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

so here,

concerning Israelites,

women are exempt.

And we object:

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 concerning the entire matter

[it is stated concerning all the matters written there],

if so, why does the Torah need to inform us of a gzera shava?

Let Scripture be silent concerning it,

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

and let it come

[and let us learn this law]

by a kal va-chomer

from priestesses .

And I say

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

And with regard to priests, concerning whom Scripture added extra mitzvot,

Scripture excluded [them], that specifically

the sons of Aaron

are commanded in the prohibition of destroying the beard—

and not the daughters of Aaron.

If so,

Israelites,

for whom Scripture did not add so many mitzvot,

all the more so

the daughters of Israel are excluded from the prohibition of destroying the beard.

And we answer:

If not for

the Torah informing us of the

gzera shava

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

we would have said

[we would have said] 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 defilement written immediately afterward , and not to the prohibition of destroying the beard written several verses after that [in verse 5], since Scripture

interrupted

the

matter

in the interim, such as “he shall defile himself for her” [there, verse 3], which is written in between.

And we object:

Now

[now] that we expound a gzera shava,

let us also say

[let us also say] that Scripture

interrupted the matter

between the exclusion of “the sons of Aaron” and not the daughters of Aaron and the prohibition of destroying the beard, and that the exclusion applies only to the prohibition for priests of becoming defiled 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 learn from it to exclude women from the prohibition of destroying the beard among Israelites, one may say that the gzera shava was not written in order to exclude women, but

it is needed

[it is needed] for another exposition.

As it was taught:

that 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 with scissors they would be liable

for this prohibition.

Scripture says:

concerning 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 by way of destruction, removing the hair down to the root [which is not applicable with scissors].

One might have thought that if he plucked

the hair in the beard

with a plucker

[with pincers, like a small pair of tongs used by sword polishers with which they smooth the scabbard],

and with a plane

[with a carpenter’s plane—a tool with which beams and boards are smoothed],

he would be liable?

Scripture says:

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 by way of shaving, and shaving is not done with a plucker or a plane.

How is this

that one is liable for shaving the beard?

When he removes the hair by means of

shaving that involves destruction; that is to say: this is

shaving with a

razor

that removes the hair down to the root.

And this teaching requires the gzera shava of “corner” and “corner,” in order to learn 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. And from where do we have to learn from the gzera shava to exclude 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,

if so,

it would have sufficed if

Scripture 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 concerning the beard it would have been written “that which is in your beard” rather than “your beard,” we would know that the reference is to the corner, and it would be considered as though it were written “you shall not destroy the corners that are in your beard.” We could still learn by the gzera shava “corner” and “corner,” from the passage concerning Israelites to the passage concerning priests, that the prohibition applies only when one performs shaving that involves destruction; or we would learn by an av binyan from the shaving of the beard of priests to the shaving of the beard of Israelites, and vice versa.

What

[what is the meaning of]

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

Learn from it [it is proven from this] that “corner” has been explained with regard to the beard, because the gzera shava was written in order to teach

two things:

a. In order to teach the manner of liability for shaving the beard, 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, that the gzera shava teaches that the passage concerning Israelites is equated with everything stated in the passage concerning priests. Since it is written in the passage concerning priests “the sons of Aaron” to exclude the daughters of Aaron, we learn by the gzera shava to exclude women from the prohibition of shaving the beard .

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

but what of that which was taught

[what we learned in a beraita]:

“The beard of a woman and of a eunuch, when they have grown hair”—

they are like a beard in all their respects; for what halakhic purpose

[with regard to which law was this stated]?

Mar Zutra said: With regard to

the matter of

defilement through afflictions

it was stated!

For the signs of afflictions in a place of hair differ from the signs of afflictions in a place of fleshly skin. In afflictions of fleshly skin, white hair is considered a sign of an affliction, whereas in a scall on the head and beard, yellow hair is considered a sign of a scall. And the beraita teaches that if a woman grows hair on her beard, the hair of her beard is considered beard-hair with regard to the signs of her affliction, which have the law of a scall of the beard and not the law of an affliction of fleshly skin.

And we object: How can it be said that the beraita teaches that the beard of a woman is considered a beard with regard to defilement through afflictions? For with regard to

defilement through afflictions it is explicitly written

the beard of a woman, as it is written [Leviticus 13:29]:

“And 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

purification from afflictions,

for when she becomes pure, she must also shave the beard, in accordance with the law of the purification of one afflicted with tzaraat, through shaving and birds.

And we object: With regard to

purification from afflictions too, it is obvious

that the beard of a woman is considered a beard,

since it is subject to defilement,

for if the affliction on the hair of a woman’s beard is considered like a scall of the beard, then it is obvious that also with regard to purification, the beard of a woman

is subject to purification

and is considered a beard with regard to purification.

And we answer:

It was necessary

for the beraita to innovate with regard to defilement through afflictions, to equate the signs of scalls of a woman’s beard with the signs of a man’s beard.

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

it might have entered your mind

that Scripture

is written with separate referents:

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

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

and

“or on the beard,”

which is written afterward,

returns to refer to a man

and not to a woman.

ka mashma lan

the beraita teaches that the woman's beard is considered a beard for all their matters.

Isi teaches: even

with regard to the prohibition of

baldness—

women are exempt.

What is the reason of Isi?

Because

he expounds as follows:

It is written [Deuteronomy 14:1–2]:

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

do not make a wound over a dead person ]

and you shall not make a baldness between your eyes for the dead, for you are a holy people to the Lord your God,”

and Isi expounds the exclusion:

“children” and not daughters, with regard to the prohibition of

the matter of

baldness

which is stated after the prohibition of gashing.

You say

that the exclusion is stated

for baldness, or perhaps [

perhaps the exclusion was not written ]

except for gashing,

which is written immediately after the exclusion of “children” and not daughters; and from where [do you know] that the exclusion is stated with regard to the prohibition of baldness, which is written after the prohibition of gashing?

And we answer:

when it says

in the verse after it:

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

women too are included in “people”—if so,

gashing is already stated,

for women have been included as being within the prohibition.

What then do I establish

with regard to that which Scripture excludes,

“children” and not daughters?

We interpret that it was stated

for baldness.

And we challenge:

And what did you see to include gashing

from the verse “for you are a holy people,” that women too are included,

and to exclude baldness

so that women were not included through “people”? After all, the exclusion applies to the prohibition of gashing exactly as it applies to the prohibition of baldness?

And we answer:

I include gashing

from “people,” that women too are included in the prohibition, because it is a severe prohibition,

which exists

for the prohibition of gashing also

in the place of hair and

also

not in the place of hair, and I exclude baldness,

for women were excluded from the prohibition through the exclusion of “children” and not daughters, because it is a lighter prohibition,

which does not apply

to the prohibition of baldness

except in the place of hair .

And we challenge:

But perhaps [

and say ] that the exclusion

“children” and not daughters

is stated

both for baldness and for gashing, and when it is written, “For you are a holy people to the Lord your God,”

to include women—

in

the prohibition of

scratching

is what is written! [

The difference between scratching and gashing is that one of them is done by hand and one is done with an instrument ].