Makkot 21a — the Talmud in English

And we answer:

Rabbi Yosei holds that scratching and cutting—

are one.

Both are forbidden whether by hand or with an implement.

And it is written there,

regarding cutting: “You shall not cut yourselves

for the dead,

and you shall not make a baldness,” and if so, we already learn from there that the entire prohibition applies only when one does this over a dead person. Therefore, the word “for a soul,” stated regarding scratching, is superfluous, and it comes to teach that one is liable for one scratching, for each and every dead person on whose account he scratches.

Shmuel said: One who scratches with an implement

over the dead

is liable

also on account of scratching, and not only on account of cutting, since ordinarily scratching is done by hand, and ordinarily cutting is done with an implement.

And Shmuel used the expression “one who scratches with an implement,” and not “one who cuts with an implement,” in order to renew that the designation of scratching applies also with an implement. Therefore, one who makes a wound in his body by means of an implement is liable to lashes for two prohibitions: on account of scratching and on account of cutting.

We raise an objection

to Shmuel from what we learned in a

beraita:

Scratching and cutting—

both concern making a wound over a dead person,

but

there is a difference between them,

for scratching

is

by hand, whereas cutting

is

with an implement.

This is difficult for Shmuel, who said that scratching applies also with an implement.

And we answer: Shmuel

is stating his view in accordance with Rabbi Yosei,

who holds that for both scratching and cutting one is liable, whether by hand or with an implement.

A tanna taught

a

beraita before Rabbi Yohanan:

One who makes a wound in his body—

If he made it

over a dead person, whether by hand or with an implement, he is liable.

Because the Torah prohibited both scratching and cutting over a dead person.

And if he made a wound in his body

over an idolatry,

for such is its manner of worship, that one makes wounds in his flesh, then if he made it

by hand, he is liable,

even if it is not the manner of that idolatry, because it is complete worship when done by hand. But if he made it

with an implement, he is exempt.

And we raise a difficulty:

But the opposite is written

regarding the prophets of Baal, of whom it is stated:

“And they cut themselves according to their manner, with swords and spears,”

[I Kings 18:28], for they performed cutting in the manner in which they were accustomed to do it, with swords. And it follows that the manner of worship in idolatry is with an implement!

And we answer:

Rather, say

that the

by hand

is exempt,

and the

with an implement is liable.

We learned in the Mishna:

And he is liable for

rounding the corner of the head:

Rav Sheshet indicated

[he showed]

to Rav Sheshet

its place, which is

between the joints of the head

[the place where the joints of the bones in the head are connected], which is the place where the head joins the face.

For the head is divided into two parts: one part is the place of the hair, and the second part is the place of the face and beard; and they join at the side of the ear in front of it, at the temples.

And it is forbidden to shave these hairs of the pe’a in such a manner that he shaves everything extending beyond the place where the hair grows on his forehead and behind his ears, so that everything is even, and the place where the hair grows from the forehead to behind the ear is in a straight line.

We learned in the Mishna:

And for

destroying the corners of

the beard

he is liable to lashes five times:

two on this side, two on that side, and one below.

Rav Sheshet indicated

[he showed]

to Rav Sheshet

the locations of the corners of the beard, which are

between the joints of the beard.

The two corners of the beard are found beneath the ear, on both sides of the face, at the place from which the lower cheek projects, and the hair there is called a “corner,” at the tip of the cheek that protrudes outward, toward the rear of the ear.

And two additional corners are [the two shibbolet on the chin, at the end of the cheeks, at the place where the cheeks join the chin, where there is a small bone joining the cheeks together. And this place, on both its sides, is called corners, because they are located at the end of the cheek].

And the fifth corner is located below, on the chin, and it is the hair between the two shibbolet on the chin, at the place where the two cheeks join, and it is a joint in its own right. We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Eliezer says: If all of them were removed

[all the hairs of the corners in the beard]

at once

[in one action],

he is liable only

once

for

lashes.

The Gemara explains: The reason of Rabbi Eliezer is that

he holds: It is one prohibition.

And since it is one prohibition, it is like one who eats an olive-sized portion of forbidden fat in two olive-sized portions with one warning, who is liable to only one set of lashes.

We learned in the Mishna:

And he is not liable

to lashes for destroying the beard

until he removes it

[shaves it]

with a razor:

The Sages taught

[they taught in a

beraita]: It is stated in the Torah regarding priests [Leviticus 21:5]: “They shall not shave the corner of their beard.”

One might have thought that even

if

they shaved it with scissors, they would be liable?

The verse states

regarding Israelites [Leviticus 19:27]:

“You shall not destroy

the corner of your beard.”

The verse teaches that only destruction is forbidden, and shaving with scissors is not destruction.

And we learn from Israelites to priests by means of a

gzera shava from the word “corner,” which is written in both passages, If “You shall not destroy”—one might have thought

even

if he plucked it with a plucker

[with tweezers, like a small pair of tongs for picking and pulling out hairs]

and with a plane

[a carpenter’s plane, an implement with which beams and boards are smoothed],

he would be liable

to lashes, since there is destruction in this?

The verse states: “They shall not shave.”

From this we learn that one is not liable for mere destruction, but only if he performs an act of shaving with an implement with which it is customary to shave. A plucker and a plane do indeed destroy, but it is not customary to shave with them. Therefore, he is exempt if he shaved with them.

It follows from the two verses that he is liable for shaving the beard only if he shaved with something with which it is customary to shave, and also performs destruction.

How

is there

a shaving that includes destruction?

It means to say: This is

shaving by means of

a razor,

with which it is customary to shave, and which destroys all the hair down to the flesh itself. Unlike a plane, which destroys but with which it is not customary to shave, and unlike scissors, which shave but do not destroy the hair from its root.

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Eliezer says: Even

if he destroyed the beard by means of a

plucker and a plane, he is liable

to lashes.

And we raise a difficulty: How does Rabbi Eliezer hold?

But

in either event: If he learned,

if he holds that the

gzera shava

of “corner” and “corner” must be derived, whereby the destruction of “You shall not destroy the corner of your beard,” stated regarding Israelites, is learned from the shaving of “They shall not shave the corner of their beard,” stated regarding priests, and conversely—

If so,

let a razor be required

in order to be liable to lashes! For we learn from the gzera shava that there must be shaving that includes destruction.

And

if

it is said that Rabbi Eliezer

did not learn

the

gzera shava,

then

with scissors also

it should be forbidden to shave! And why did he prohibit only with a plucker and a plane, which involve destruction?

And we answer:

Actually, Rabbi Eliezer

Rabbi Eliezer

did learn

the

the

gzera shava. And he holds

that Rabbi Eliezer says that

these—

a plucker and a plane—

also perform shaving,

[it is customary to shave with them]. Therefore, they are considered shaving implements that involve destruction, and they are learned from the gzera shava to be forbidden, and one is liable to lashes for them.

Mishna:

One who writes a tattoo,

who writes on his flesh with ink in the form of letters, and afterward cuts the place in his flesh with a knife or a needle, and the color enters between the skin and the flesh in such a manner that it is not erased all the days , is liable to lashes, since the Torah prohibited writing any writing whatsoever upon his flesh in this manner, as it is stated: “And a tattooed inscription you shall not place in yourselves” [Leviticus 19:28].

He wrote but did not tattoo,

because he did not cut with a knife, or he

tattooed

with a knife

but did not write,

because he did not fill the place with ink,

he is not liable

until he writes

and tattoos.

And this is provided that he writes the tattoo

with ink,

or with blue dye, or with anything that makes a mark.

Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda in the name of Rabbi Shimon says: He is not liable until he writes the Name,

in the place where he cut,

the Name,

the name of an idolatry,

as it is stated: “And a tattooed inscription you shall not place in yourselves; I am the Lord,”

and we expound in the Gemara: “I am the Lord!” Therefore, do not write another name upon your flesh, so that you do not associate other deities with Me.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: Rabbi Shimon says: He is not liable for a tattoo inscription until he writes the name, as it is said: “And a tattoo inscription you shall not place upon yourselves; I am the Lord.”

And Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, understood from Rabbi Shimon’s words that, apparently, he is liable only if he writes the words “I am the Lord” in the tattoo inscription, and therefore he wondered:

Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: Is it indeed Rabbi Shimon’s intention when he says “until he writes the name” that he is not liable for writing a tattoo inscription

until he writes

“I am the Lord” ממש!?

He said to him

Rav Ashi:

No.

Rather, the explanation of Rabbi Shimon’s words in the Mishna is:

As bar Kappara taught: He is not liable until he writes a name

of

idolatry. As it is said: “And a tattoo inscription you shall not place upon yourselves; I am the Lord.”

From here, the reason for prohibiting the writing of a tattoo inscription on the flesh is that

“I am the Lord,” and no other.

And it is forbidden for you to write another name upon your flesh.

And it follows that the principal liability is because he writes the name of idolatry.

Rav Malkiya said that Rav Adda bar Ahava said: It is forbidden for a person

to place burnt ashes upon his wound, because it appears like a tattoo inscription.

The two amoraim, Rav Malkio and Rav Malkiya, had similar names, and they explained six laws.

Three of the six laws were stated concerning matters mentioned in the Mishna or in a beraita, whereas the other three laws were stated independently.

And since the names of Rav Malkio and Rav Malkiya were similar, the amoraim disputed which of the six laws Rav Malkio said and which Rav Malkiya said.

Rav Naḥman, son of Rav Yitzḥak, said:

These three laws—the first concerning

a spit [

in Beitza 28b], the second concerning

maidservants [

in Ketubot 61b]

and

the third concerning

hollows [

in Niddah 52a]—were said by

Rav Malkio.

And the other three laws, which were stated concerning

a forelock [

in Tractate Avodah Zarah 29a],

burnt ashes [

which is the statement here],

and cheese [

in Tractate Avodah Zarah 35b], were said by

Rav Malkiya.

But

Rav Pappa

disagrees with what Rav Naḥman, son of Rav Yitzḥak, attributed—the law concerning “maidservants”—to Rav Malkio, and

said:

The law concerning the matter of “maidservants” was said by Rav Malkiya, and not by Rav Malkio!

And Rav Pappa gave a sign by means of which it is possible to distinguish in which law he disagrees with Rav Naḥman, son of Rav Yitzḥak, and this is the sign:

Of the three laws attributed to Rav Malkio, he did not say all of them, for the law dealing with what is stated in

the matnita and the matnita [

in the Mishna and the beraita], namely, the law of maidservants, was said by

Rav Malkiya,

and not by Rav Malkio.

But the other two laws attributed to Rav Malkio—the spit and the hollows—which have the status of

an shemata

alone [reports of amoraim that do not refer to a Mishna or a beraita]—were said by

Rav Malkio.

He stated them.

And as stated, Rav Pappa disagreed with Rav Naḥman, son of Rav Yitzḥak, only concerning maidservants, which is one of the three laws attributed to Rav Malkio. And only concerning it did Rav Pappa give this sign: according to his words, the law of maidservants was said by Rav Malkiya.

But, on the other hand, concerning the other three laws attributed to Rav Malkiya, Rav Pappa agrees with Rav Naḥman, son of Rav Yitzḥak, that all three of them were said by Rav Malkiya, even though among them there is a statement that does not refer to a Mishna or a beraita, namely, the statement in our sugya concerning burnt ashes. For concerning these statements Rav Pappa did not give this sign, and Rav Pappa did not disagree concerning who said them.

And according to his words, Rav Malkiya said four laws: the three laws relating to the Mishna and the beraita, and one—burnt ashes [which is in our sugya]—relating to an shemata. Whereas Rav Malkio said two statements.

And your sign

so that you will not exchange the version:

The matnita,

which is feminine in wording, is considered like

“a queen” [

queen] with regard to the shemata of the amoraim.

For the Mishna or the beraita is more important than the report, since when an amora taught a report contrary to a Mishna or a beraita, his words are rejected on account of them.

And since the Mishna or the beraita is considered a “queen” [malketa], this will be a sign for the name of Rav Malkiya, that he is the one who said the statement concerning the Mishna.

For the name of Rav “Malkiya” resembles “malketa,” which is feminine in wording.

Whereas the name of Rav “Malkio” resembles “king,” which is masculine in wording.

And we raised it:

What is the difference between them,

in which law is there a difference between the words of Rav Naḥman, son of Rav Yitzḥak, and Rav Pappa?

And the Gemara explains:

There is a difference between them: maidservants,

that is, the law that was stated concerning maidservants.

According to Rav Naḥman, son of Rav Yitzḥak, Rav Malkio is the one who said this law.

But according to Rav Pappa, Rav Malkiya said it. For according to Rav Pappa, all the laws that refer to the Mishna were said only by Rav Malkiya.

Rav Bibi bar Abaye was particular

to be concerned

even about the puncture made by the bloodletter [

a puncture that the craftsman makes in the flesh to let blood], because it appears like a tattoo inscription.

Rav Ashi said: Wherever there is a wound

there is no concern if it appears like a tattoo inscription, since

his wound proves it,

for the mark on the flesh was made on account of the wound; and in this he disagrees with Rav Malkiya, who forbids placing burnt ashes on his wound.

Mishna:

a.

A Nazirite who was drinking wine all day is liable only

once

for one

set of lashes. For what he drank within the time of speech after the warning.

And if they warned him and

said to him

between one drinking and another:

“Do not drink! Do not drink!”

And

after each time that they warned him,

he

was

drinking,

then he is

liable for each and every one

of the times that they warned him and he drank.

b. A Nazirite [and likewise a kohen] who

was becoming impure through contact with the dead all day,

the law is that he

is liable only

once

for one

set of lashes.

And if they warned him and

said to him

between one instance of impurity and another:

“Do not become impure! Do not become impure! And

after each time that they warned him,

he

was

becoming impure,

then he is

liable for each and every one

of the times that he withdrew from the impurity, they warned him, and he again became impure.

c. A Nazirite who

was shaving

his hair even

all day

long,

is liable only

once

for one

set of lashes.

And if they warned him and

said to him

between one shaving and another:

“Do not shave! Do not shave! And

each time that they warned him,

he

was

shaving,

then he is

liable for each and every one

of the times that he shaved after a warning.

Until here the Mishna spoke of a Nazirite; from here onward it is speaking of every Israelite.

d.

If he was wearing a garment of mixed kinds all day, he is liable only once.

And if they warned him and

said to him

between one wearing and another:

“Do not put it on! Do not put it on! And

each time that they warned him,

he

was

taking it off and putting it on, [

even if he did not actually take it off, but merely removed his head and put it back between one warning and another], then he is

liable for each and every one

of the times that he took it off and put it on.