Makkot 20b (כ:) — the Talmud in English

Rather,

it must necessarily be referring to a case where he made five acts of baldness one after another,

with a single warning,

as they warned him before the first act of baldness.

And we raise an objection:

Who would hold him liable

in such a case for each and every act of baldness?

But didn’t we learn

below (21a):

“A nazirite who was drinking wine all day is liable only for

lashes

once”?

This is so even though it is impossible for one continuous act of drinking to last throughout the entire day. Necessarily, then, even if he drank one after another, he is liable only once!

And if they warned him and

said to him

between one act of drinking and the next:

“Do not drink! Do not drink!” and

after each time they warned him,

he

did

drink, he is liable for each and every one

of the times they warned him and he drank.

And it is proven from this Mishna that even if he transgressed one act after another, with a single warning he is liable only for the first time he transgressed that warning, because with regard to the second time we are concerned that he may already have managed to forget the warning. If so, how can he be held liable here, with a single warning, for each and every act of baldness!?

And we answer:

It is necessary

indeed, there was only one warning for all five acts of baldness, but the case is one in which he performed all the acts of baldness within toch kedei dibbur of the warning,

as he coated his five fingers

with

nasa [

a substance that removes hair ],

and placed them [

and placed all five of his fingers on his head

at once

in five locations; in such a manner, the Torah innovated that he is liable for lashes ] for each and every act of baldness.

Since

he performed all the acts of baldness at once,

it is considered a warning for each and every one.

There is a warning for each and every act of baldness performed with each and every finger. Since immediately after the warning he performed all five acts at one time, you cannot apply the warning to one act and not to another; therefore, the warning applies to each and every act, as though there had been a separate warning for each act.

And how much

is the

measure of baldness

for which one is liable to receive lashes?

Rav Huna says:

Its measure is

so that there can be seen

a patch

of

skin

on his head

when it is exposed without hair .

Rabbi Yoḥanan says in the name of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon:

Its measure is

the size of a gris.

And the Gemara says that the dispute concerning this matter is

a dispute between tannaim:

as it was taught

“What is the measure of baldness” [

Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says ]:

“The size of a gris. Others say: So that it can be seen on his head.”

Rav Yehuda bar Ḥaviva said: Three tannaim disagree concerning it:

One says, the size of a gris. One says, so that it can be seen on his head. And one says, like two hairs.

And there is

another approach, which replaces the opinion of one of the approaches,

which removes

the third opinion, which says that the measure is

two hairs, and inserts

in its place another opinion, that the measure of baldness is

the size of a lentil.

Its measure is four hairs, namely, two hairs by two hairs [Negaim 6:1].

And your mnemonic is this:

So that you will remember that it is specifically the third opinion, “two hairs,” that is replaced by “the size of a lentil,” and not mistakenly say that the first opinion, “the size of a gris,” is replaced by “the size of a lentil,” you have a mnemonic reminding you that both the measure of a gris and the measure of a lentil were taught here. Necessarily, then, it is specifically the measure of two hairs that was replaced by the measure of a lentil, and not the measure of a gris that was replaced by the measure of a lentil.

For we find, with regard to the measures of nega'im, a Mishna that says:

A baheret

whose measure is

the size of a gris, and healthy flesh

that appears within the lesion, whose measure is

the size of a lentil.

And this same matter will serve as a mnemonic for you regarding the measures of baldness: there too, there is an opinion that its measure is the size of a gris, while, on the other hand, there is an opinion that its measure is the size of a lentil. According to the mnemonic of this Mishna, we know that the measure of the size of a lentil replaces the opinion of two hairs, and not that the measure of the size of a lentil replaces the opinion of the size of a gris.

But we will not mistakenly say that the opinion of the size of a lentil replaces the opinion of “so that it can be seen on his head,” and no mnemonic is needed for this, because one opinion is replaced only by an opinion similar to it. Since the measure of a lentil is fixed, it can replace only an opinion whose measure is fixed, such as a gris, and not “so that it can be seen on his head,” for which there is no fixed measure for every person.

A tanna taught: One who removes

hairs

the full width of the blades of a pair of scissors [

the full width of the sharp edges of the scissors

on Shabbat is liable

for the labor of shearing.

And how much

is

the full width of the blades of a pair of scissors?

Rav Yehuda said: Two [

two hairs].

And we raise an objection:

But wasn’t it taught

with regard to the prohibition of shearing on Shabbat, for which one is liable for the measure of the full width of the blades of a pair of scissors, whereas

with

regard to liability for lashes for the prohibition of

baldness,

one is liable for a measure of

two [

two hairs].

This implies that the measure of two hairs is different from the measure of the full width of the blades of a pair of scissors.

And we answer:

Say

that the baraita should be read as follows:

“And likewise, for baldness, two.”

That is, baldness too has the same measure as shearing on Shabbat: one is liable for two hairs.

It was likewise taught: One who removes the full width of the blades of a pair of scissors on Shabbat is liable

for shearing.

And how much is the full width of the blades of a pair of scissors? Two.

Rabbi Eliezer says:

Its measure is one

hair.

And the Sages concede to Rabbi Eliezer with regard to one who plucks white hairs from among black hairs

so that he will not appear old . In such a case, its measure is

even

one

hair,

for he is liable

on Shabbat for the labor of shearing, because this is a significant labor for him.

And this matter is prohibited even on a weekday,

since he beautifies himself with feminine adornment, and it is prohibited

because it is stated: “A man shall not wear a woman's garment”

(Deuteronomy 22:5):

We learned in the Mishna:

“And one who rounds off the side-growth of his head, etc.”

The Sages taught:

The Sages taught in a baraita:

“The side-growth of his head”

is

the end of his head,

as pe'a means an end and extremity, as it is written: “Toward the side of the sea” (Exodus 27:12).

And what is [

In what manner is one

liable for “you shall not round off” when he rounds off

the end of his head?

This is one who makes

his temples

the sides of his forehead, where the side-growth of the head is located,

level with the back of his ear and with his forehead [

the front part of the forehead], where there is no hair.

That is, he removes the hair on the sides, found between the front of his head and its rear. On the sides, the hair of the side-growth descends below the level of the hair on his front forehead and behind his ears, and he makes it level, in a straight and surrounding line, with the places where the hair grows on his head, until the hairline appears round and even. Thus the temple, the back of the ear, and the forehead are all smooth, while the hair on the crown of the head remains in an encircled area.

A tanna taught

a baraita

before Rav Ḥisda:

Since it is written “You shall not round off” in the plural, we learn from this that with regard to the prohibition against rounding off, both the barber and the one whose hair is cut transgress a negative commandment. Therefore,

both the one who rounds off [

the barber]

and the one whose hair is rounded off [

the one whose hair is cut]

receive lashes [

that is, both receive lashes].

He said to him,

Rav Ḥisda: Is it really so that

one who eats dates in a sieve receives lashes!? [

Will one who eats dates in a sieve receive lashes]? This refers to the practice of the time: the one whose hair was being cut would sit with a sieve to receive the hairs that fell during the haircut, and, so as not to sit idle, he would sometimes eat dates from the sieve while his hair was being cut.

In other words, it is true that the one whose hair is rounded off transgresses a negative commandment, but why is he liable to lashes for this? After all, he performed no action. Will he receive lashes merely because he enjoyed eating dates, without performing an action with regard to the haircut?

Therefore,

when someone asks you, “Whose opinion is this?”

the one asking you: According to whose view did you teach the words of the baraita that the one whose hair is rounded off receives lashes? Answer him that according to

Rabbi Yehuda it is. For he said

(above, 16a), that even for

a negative commandment that does not involve an action, one receives lashes.

Rava says:

There is no need to establish the baraita, which says that the one whose hair is rounded off receives lashes, only according to Rabbi Yehuda. Rather, it can be established

in a case where he rounds off his own hair,

so that he is liable to two sets of lashes, both for rounding off and for having his hair rounded off.

And

the baraita was stated according to

everyone’s opinion.

Rav Ashi says:

The baraita can be established

in a case where he assists,

where the one whose hair is being rounded off prepares his hair for the barber, or leans himself toward him so that he can round it off, for in this manner it is a negative commandment that involves an action,

and

the one whose hair is rounded off receives lashes according to

everyone’s opinion.

We learned in the Mishna:

We learned in the Mishna:

“And one who destroys the side-growth of his beard”:

The Sages taught:

The Sages taught in a baraita:

“The side-growth of his beard”

is

the end of his beard.

And what is the end of his beard?

The shibolet of his beard.

Each of the five side-growths is called a shibolet, either because of the hair that protrudes there or because there is a slight protrusion of flesh there.

We learned in the Mishna:

“And one who makes a single scratch”

and so on:

The Sages taught [they taught] in a baraita: It is stated in the Torah

“And you shall make a scratch.”

Could

he be liable to lashes

even

if

he scratched over his house that collapsed or over his ship that sank at sea?

The verse states: “For the dead.”

This teaches that he

is liable only for the dead.

And from where do we derive that one who makes five scratches over one dead person is liable for each and every one?

The verse states: “And you shall make a scratch,” to make him liable for each and every scratch.

For the verse could have stated, “You shall not make a scratch for the dead.” Alternatively, we derive this from the letter vav in “and you shall make a scratch,” which is superfluous.

Rabbi Yosei says: From where do we derive that one who makes a single scratch

for the distress he has

over five dead people is liable for each and every one?

The verse states: “For the dead,” to make him liable for each and every person,

and we raise an objection:

But you have already derived it,

for we have already expounded the word “for,” which comes

to

exclude one who scratches over

his house that collapsed and

o

n his ship that sank

at sea,

for he is not flogged for them; and it is not reasonable to say that Rabbi Yosei disputes this exposition, since it is the plain meaning of the verse.