Makkot 20b — the Talmud in English

Rather,

necessarily, it is speaking of one who made five bald spots one after another,

with one warning,

for they warned him before the first bald spot.

And we challenge this:

Who makes him liable

in such a case for each and every bald spot?

But did we not learn

below (21a

that a nazirite who was drinking wine the entire day is liable only

for one set of lashes,

one.

This is so even though one continuous drinking bout lasting the entire day is impossible. Necessarily, even if he drank one after another, he is liable only once!

And if they warned him and

said to him

between one drink and the next:

“Do not drink! Do not drink!” And

after each time that they warned him,

he

would

drink, he is liable for each and every one

of the occasions on which they warned him and he drank.

And it is proven from this Mishna that even if he transgressed one after another, with one warning he is liable only for the first occasion on which he transgressed the warning, because on the second occasion we are concerned that perhaps he had already had time to forget the warning. And if so, how do they make him liable here, with one warning, for each and every bald spot!?

And we answer:

It is necessary,

indeed there was only one warning for all five bald spots, but it is speaking of a case in which he made all the bald spots within toch kedei dibbur of the warning,

for he smeared his five fingers

with

nasa [

a substance that removes the hair ],

and placed them [

and placed all five of his fingers on his head

at one time

in five places, for in this manner the Torah innovated that he is liable for lashes for each and every bald spot.

For

since he made all the bald spots at one time,

it is a warning for each and every one.

There is here a warning for each and every bald spot made by 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 a bald spot

for one to be liable for lashes on its account?

Rav Huna says:

Its measure is

so that there can be seen

a bare

part of

the skin of

his head

when it is exposed, without hair .

Rabbi Yohanan says in the name of Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon:

Its measure is

like a gris.

And the Gemara says that the dispute concerning this matter is

as the dispute of tannaim:

for it was taught:

How much is the measure of a bald spot [

Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says ]:

Like a gris. Others say: So that it can be seen from his head.]]

Rav Yehuda bar Haviva said: They disagree about it—three tannaim:

One says, like a gris. One says, so that it can be seen from his head. And one says, like two hairs.

And there is

another approach, which replaces the view of one approach,

which removes

the third approach, which says that the measure is

two hairs, and inserts

in its place another approach, that the measure of a bald spot is

like a lentil.

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

And your sign is this:

In order that you remember that specifically the third approach, which says “two hairs,” is replaced with “like a lentil,” and you should not err and say that the first approach, which says “like a gris,” is replaced with “like a lentil,” you have a sign to remind you that both the measure of a gris and the measure of a lentil were taught here. Necessarily, specifically the approach of two hairs was replaced with a lentil, and the approach of a gris was not replaced with a lentil.

For we have found, with regard to the measures of afflictions, a Mishna that says:

A baheret

its measure is

like a gris, and a living flesh patch

of flesh that appears within the affliction, its measure is

like a lentil.

And the same thing will be for you as a sign concerning the measures of a bald spot: there too there is an approach that says its measure is like a gris, and, on the other hand, there is an approach that says its measure is like a lentil. And according to the sign of this Mishna, we will know to distinguish that they replace and read the measure of a lentil in place of the approach of two hairs, and do not replace and read the measure of a lentil in place of the approach of a gris.

But we will not err to say that the approach of a lentil is replaced by the approach of “so that it can be seen from his head,” and no sign is needed for this, because we replace one approach only with an approach similar to it. Since the measure of a lentil is fixed, it can be replaced only by an approach whose measure is fixed, like a gris, and not by the approach of “so that it can be seen from his head,” for it has no fixed measure for every person.

A tanna taught: One who removes

hairs

the fullness of the mouth of the scissors [

the fullness of the edge of scissors

on Shabbat is liable

on account of the labor of shearing.

And how much

is

the fullness of the mouth of the scissors?

Rav Yehuda said: Two [

two hairs].

And we challenge this:

But was it not taught:

with regard to the prohibition of shearing on Shabbat, for which one is liable at the measure of the fullness of the mouth of the scissors, whereas

with regard to

the liability for lashes for the prohibition of

a bald spot,

one is liable at the measure of

two [

two hairs].

And it implies that the measure of two hairs is a different measure from the measure of the fullness of the mouth of the scissors.

And we answer:

Say

that one should read in the beraita:

And likewise, for a bald spot, two.

That is, a bald spot too has the same measure as shearing on Shabbat, for which one is liable for two hairs.

It was also taught so: One who removes the fullness of the mouth of the scissors on Shabbat is liable

on account of shearing.

And how much is the fullness of the mouth of the scissors? Two.

Rabbi Eliezer says:

Its measure is one hair,

one.

And the Sages agree with Rabbi Eliezer concerning one who plucks white hairs from among black hairs

so that he should not appear old . For in such a case its measure is

even

one hair,

one,

for he is liable

on Shabbat on account of the labor of shearing, because it is an important labor for him.

And this matter is forbidden even on a weekday,

since he beautifies himself with the beauty of a woman, and it is forbidden

because it is said, “A man shall not wear a woman’s garment”

(Deuteronomy 22:5):

We learned in the Mishna:

And one who rounds off the side of his head, etc.:

The Sages taught:

The Sages taught in a beraita:

The side of his head

this is

the end of his head,

for peah means an end and extremity, as it is written, “toward the side of the sea” (Exodus 27:12).

And what is [

in what matter is one liable “for do not round off” when he rounds off

the end of his head?]]

This is one who makes level

his

temples,

the sides of his forehead, where the side-locks of the head are,

with the back of his ear and with his forehead [

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

And this means that he removes the hair on the sides, which is found between the front part of his head and its back part. On the sides, the hair of the side-locks of the head descends lower than the level of the hair on his front forehead and behind his ears, and he makes them level, in a straight and circumferential line, with the place of the growth of the hair on his head, until the place of hair growth appears round and even, so that the place of the temple, together with the back of the ear and the forehead, is all smooth, and the hair at the height of the head remains in an enclosed circle.

A tanna taught

a beraita

before Rav Hisda,

Since it is written “do not round off” in the plural, they learn from this that in the prohibition of rounding off, both the barber and the one whose hair is cut transgress the negative commandment. And therefore,

both the one who rounds off [

the barber]

and the one whose head is rounded off [

the one whose hair is cut]

are lashed [

that is, both of them are lashed].

He said to him

Rav Hisda: Is it so that

one who eats dates in a sieve is lashed!?

[

And is one who eats dates in a sieve to be lashed?] That is, although the one whose head is rounded off transgresses a negative commandment, why is he liable for lashes for this? After all, he did not perform any act; is he to be lashed merely because he enjoyed eating dates, without performing an act with regard to the haircut?

And therefore,

when someone says to you, “According to whom!?”

the one asking you: According to whose view did you teach the words of the beraita that the one whose head is rounded off is lashed? Answer him that according to the words of

Rabbi Yehuda it is. For he says

(above 16a), also concerning

a negative commandment that does not involve an act, one is lashed for it.

Rava says:

There is no need to establish the beraita that says that the one whose head is rounded off is lashed only according to Rabbi Yehuda; rather, it can be established

with one who rounds off himself,

who is liable for two sets of lashes, both on account of rounding off and on account of being rounded off.

And

the beraita was stated according to

everyone’s opinion.

Rav Ashi says:

The beraita can be established

with one who assists,

where the one whose head is rounded off prepares his hair for the barber, or inclines himself toward him so that he can round him off , for in such a manner it is a negative commandment that involves an act ,

and

the one whose head is rounded off is lashed according to

everyone’s opinion.

We learned in the Mishna:

We learned in the Mishna

and one who destroys the side-lock of his beard:

The Sages taught:

The Sages taught in a beraita:

The side-lock of his beard

this is

the end of his beard.

And what is the end of his beard?

The stalk of his beard.

Each and every one of the five side-locks is called a stalk because of the hair that protrudes there, or because there is there a slight protrusion of flesh.

We learned in the Mishna:

And one who makes one scratch

and so on:

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

“And you shall make a scratch.”

Could

be liable to lashes

even

if

he scratched over his house that fell and over his ship that sank in the sea?

The verse states: “For the dead.”

To teach that

he is liable only for the dead.

And from where is it known concerning one who makes five scratches on one dead person, that he 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 Scripture could have said, “For the dead you shall not make a scratch.” Or we learn it from the letter vav of “and you shall make a scratch,” which is superfluous.

Rabbi Yosei says: From where is it known concerning one who makes one scratch

over the distress he has

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

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

And we challenge:

But you have already derived it,

for we already expounded the word “for the dead,” that it comes

to

exclude one who scratches over

his house that fell and

on

his ship that sank

in the sea,

for which one is not flogged; and it is not reasonable to say that Rabbi Yosei disagrees with this exposition, since it is the plain meaning of the verse.