Makkot 21a (כא.) — the Talmud in English

And we answer:

Rabbi Yosei holds that scratching and gashing—

are one and the same.

Both are prohibited whether performed by hand or with an implement.

And it is written there,

regarding gashing: “You shall not cut yourselves

for the dead,

nor make a baldness between your eyes.” If so, we already learn from there that the entire prohibition applies only when one does so for the dead. Therefore, the word “for a soul,” stated with regard to scratching, is superfluous, and it comes to teach that one is liable for a single scratching for each and every dead person on whose account he scratches.

Shmuel said: One who scratches with an implement

for the dead

is liable

also on account of scratching, and not only on account of gashing. This is because the ordinary form of scratching is performed by hand, whereas the ordinary form of gashing is performed with an implement.

Shmuel used the expression “one who scratches with an implement,” rather than “one who gashes with an implement,” in order to teach that the designation scratching applies even when it is performed with an implement. Therefore, one who wounds his body with an implement is liable to lashes for two prohibitions: because he scratches and because he gashes.

Meytivi

Shmuel from what we learned in a beraita:

Scratching and gashing—

are one and the same.

The subject of both is wounding oneself for the dead,

but

there is a difference between them, in that

scratching

is performed

by hand, whereas gashing

is performed

with an implement.

This poses a difficulty to Shmuel, who said that the designation scratching applies even when it is performed with an implement.

And we answer: Shmuel

stated his opinion in accordance with Rabbi Yosei,

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

A tanna taught

a beraita

before Rabbi Yoḥanan:

One who wounds his body—

If he did so

for the dead, whether by hand or with an implement, he is liable.

This is because the Torah prohibited both scratching and gashing for the dead.

But if he wounds his body

for idolatry,

as this is the manner of serving that idolatry, namely, by making wounds in one’s flesh, then if he did so

by hand, he is liable,

even if it is not the manner of serving that particular idolatry, because an act of service performed by hand is a complete act of worship. But if he did so

with an implement, he is exempt.

And we challenge this:

But the opposite is written

with regard to the prophets of Baal, of whom it is stated:

“And they cut themselves according to their custom, with swords and spears,” [I Kings 18:28],

as they performed gashing in the manner in which they were accustomed to do so, with swords. This indicates that the manner of serving idolatry is with an implement!

And we answer:

Rather, say

that the beraita should be read in the opposite manner: One who gashes for idolatry,

by hand

is exempt,

but with an implement he is liable.

We learned in the Mishna:

And he is liable for

the removal of the corner of

the head:

Rav Sheshet showed [

indicating it]

Rav Sheshet

the place, which is

between the joints of the head [

the place where the joints of the bones in the head connect], which is the place where the head joins the face.

This is because 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. They join at the side of the ear, in front of it, at the temples.

It is prohibited to shave these hairs of the corner in such a manner that one shaves everything protruding beyond the place where the hair grows on his forehead and behind his ears, making everything even, so that the place where the hair grows from the forehead to behind the ear forms a straight line.

We learned in the Mishna:

And for

destroying the corners of

the beard

he is liable to five sets of lashes:

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

Rav Sheshet showed [

indicating them]

Rav Sheshet

the locations of the corners of the beard, which are

between the joints of the beard.

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

And there are two additional corners [the two tufts on the chin, at the bottom of the cheeks, where the cheeks join the chin, where there is a small bone joining the cheeks together. This place, on both of its sides, is called the corners, because they are located at the ends of the cheeks.

The fifth corner is located below, on the chin. It is the hair between the two tufts on the chin, at the place where the two cheeks join, and it is a separate joint]. We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Eliezer says: If all of them are removed [

all the hairs of the corners of the beard]

at once [

in a single act]

he is liable only

once

for one

set of lashes.

The Gemara explains: The reason for Rabbi Eliezer’s opinion is that

he holds that it is one prohibition.

Since it is one prohibition, this is comparable to one who eats a quantity of forbidden fat equal to two olive-bulk portions after receiving a single warning: he is liable to only one set of lashes.

We learned in the Mishna:

And he is not liable

for lashes on account of 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 concerning priests [Leviticus 21:5]:

“Nor shall they shave the corner of their beard.”

One might have thought that even

if he

shaved it with scissors, he should be liable.

The verse states

with regard to Israelites [Leviticus 19:27]:

“You shall not destroy

the corner of your beard.”

The verse teaches that only destruction is prohibited, whereas shaving with scissors is not destruction.

And we derive the law concerning priests from the law concerning Israelites by means of a gzera shava from the word “corner,” which is written in both passages ,

If the verse “You shall not destroy” teaches this, one might have thought

that even

if he plucked it with a tweezers [

with pincers, like a small pair of tongs used to pick out and pull out hairs]

or with a plane [

with a carpenter’s plane, an implement used to smooth beams and boards],

he should be liable

to lashes, since this involves destruction?

The verse states: “Nor shall they shave.”

From this we learn that one is not liable merely for destruction, but only if he performs an act of shaving with an implement ordinarily used for shaving. A tweezers and a plane do destroy, but they are not ordinarily used for shaving. Therefore, he is exempt if he shaves with them.

It emerges from the two verses that one is liable for shaving the beard only if he shaves with an implement ordinarily used for shaving and also performs destruction.

How, then,

is there

shaving that involves destruction?

This is to say that

shaving by means of

a razor,

which is ordinarily used for shaving and destroys all the hair down to the flesh itself. This is unlike a plane, which destroys but is not ordinarily used for shaving, and unlike scissors, which shave but do not destroy the hair at its root.

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Eliezer says: Even

if he destroyed the beard by means of a

tweezers or a plane, he is liable

to lashes.

And we challenge this: How does Rabbi Eliezer hold this opinion?

But

in either case: If he learned,

if he holds that one must derive the

gzera shava

of “corner” and “corner,” deriving the destruction of “You shall not destroy the corner of your beard,” stated with regard to Israelites, from the shaving of “Nor shall they shave the corner of their beard,” stated with regard to priests, and vice versa—

If so,

a razor should be required

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

And

if

it is said that Rabbi Eliezer

did not learn

the

gzera shava,

then

scissors should also be

prohibited for shaving! Why, then, did he prohibit only a tweezers and a plane, which involve destruction?

And we answer:

Actually,

Rabbi Eliezer

did learn

the

gzera shava.

And he holds

that Rabbi Eliezer maintains that

these,

the tweezers and the plane,

also perform shaving, [

they are ordinarily used for shaving]. Therefore, they are considered shaving implements that involve destruction, and the gzera shava teaches that they are prohibited, so one is liable to lashes for using them.

Mishna:

One who writes a tattoo,

who writes on his flesh with ink in the form of letters, and then cuts the place in his flesh with a knife or needle, so that the color enters between the skin and the flesh in a manner that does not disappear for all time is liable to lashes, since the Torah prohibited writing any writing whatsoever on one’s flesh in this manner, as it is stated: “You shall not place a tattoo inscription upon yourselves” [Leviticus 19:28].

If he wrote but did not tattoo,

as he did not cut the flesh with a knife, or if he

tattooed

with a knife

but did not write,

as 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 inscription

with ink,

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

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

in the place where he cut the flesh,

the name,

the name of an idolatry,

as it is stated: “You shall not place a tattoo inscription upon yourselves, I am the Lord,”

and the Gemara expounds: “I am the Lord!” Therefore, do not write the name of another deity upon your flesh, thereby associating other gods with Me.

Gemara:

V Mishna my uchili: Rabbi Shimon govorit: «On ne podvergaetsya nakazaniyu, poka ne napeshet imya», kak skazano: «I tatuировка ne nanosite na sebya; Ya Gospod, Bog vash».

Rav Aha, syn Rav Ravy, ponyal iz slov Rabbi Shimona, chto, po vidimomu, nakazanie predusmotreno tolko za naneesenie v vide tatuировки slov «Ya Gospod, Bog vash», i poetomu sprosil:

Rav Aha, syn Rav Ravy, skazal Rav Ashi:

Neuzheli Rabbi Shimon, skazav «poka ne napeshet imya», deystvitelno imeet v vidu, chto za tatuировку ne podvergayut nakazaniyu

poka on v samom dele ne napeshet «Ya Gospod, Bog vash»?!

Skazal emu

Rav Ashi:

Net.

Smysl slov Rabbi Shimona v Mishna sleduyushchiy:

kak uchil bar Kapp ra: «On ne podvergaetsya nakazaniyu, poka ne napeshet imya

idola.

Kak skazano: “I tatuировку ne nanosite na sebya; Ya Gospod, Bog vash”.

Otsyuda sleduet, chto prichina zapreta nashivaniya tatuировки na tele zaklyuchaetsya v tom, chto

“Ya Gospod, Bog vash, a ne kto-libo drugoy”.

I vam zapresheno napechatlevat na svoem tele kakoe-libo drugoe imya.

Iz etogo sleduet, chto osnovanie nakazaniya — naneesenie imeni idola.

Rav Malkiya skazal ot imeni Rav Addy bar Ahavy: cheloveku zapresheno

kladt pepel posle prozhiga na ranu, potomu chto eto vyglyadit kak tatuировка.

Dva amora, Rav Malkio i Rav Malkiya, byli pohozhy po imenam, i oni razyasnili shest gалахot.

Tri iz shesti gалахot byli skazany po povodu voprosov, upomyanutyh v Mishna ili barayte, a ostalnye tri gалахot byli skazany sami po sebe.

A tak kak imena Rav Malkio i Rav Malkiya byli pohozhy, amoraim razoshlis v mneniyah: kakie iz shesti gалахot skazal Rav Malkio, a kakie — Rav Malkiya.

Rav Nahman, syn Rav Iki, skazal:

Tri sleduyushchie gалахot: pervaya — o

vertele

[Beitsa 28b], vtoraya — o

rabynyah

[Ketubot 61b]

i

tretya — o

yemkah

[Nidda 52a],

skazal Rav Malkio.

A ostalnye tri gалахot, skazannye po povodu

peysov

[v traktate Avoda Zara 29a],

pepela posle prozhiga

[eto privodimoye zdes izrechenie]

i syra

[v traktate Avoda Zara 35b],

skazal Rav Malkiya.

No

Rav Pappa

ne soglashaetsya s tem, chto Rav Nahman, syn Rav Iki, otnes gалахu o «rabynyah» k Rav Malkio, i

skazal:

gалаху o zakone rabyn, skazal Rav Malkiya, a ne Rav Malkio!

Rav Pappa privel prizn ak, po kotorymu mozhno otlichit, v kakoy imenno gалахe on ne soglasen s Rav Nahmanom, synom Rav Iki. Vot etot priznak:

Iz treh gалахot, otnesyonnyh k Rav Malkio, ne vse skazal on, tak kak gалаху, otnosyashchuyusya k tomu, chto skazano v

Mishne i barayte

[v Mishna i barayte], a imenno zakon o rabynyah,

skazal Rav Malkiya,

a ne Rav Malkio.

A dve ostalnye gалахot, otnesyonnyh k Rav Malkio, — o vertele i yemkah, yavlyayushchiesya

sluhami

tolko [sluhami amoraim, ne otnosyashchimisya k Mishna ili barayte], —

skazal Rav Malkio

sam.

Kak bylo skazano, Rav Pappa ne soglasen s Rav Nahmanom, synom Rav Iki, tolko v otnoshenii rabyn, kotorye sostavlyayut odnu iz treh gалахot, otnesyonnyh k Rav Malkio. I tolko o nih Rav Pappa privel etot priznak: po ego slovam, gалахu o rabynyah skazal Rav Malkiya.

No, s drugoy storony, v otnoshenii treh ostalnyh gалахot, otnesyonnyh k Rav Malkiya, Rav Pappa soglashaetsya s Rav Nahmanom, synom Rav Iki, v tom, chto vse tri skazal Rav Malkiya, nesmotrya na to, chto odno iz nih ne otnositsya k Mishna ili barayte — eto privodimoye v nashem otрывke izrechenie o pep elе posle prozhiga. Tak kak otnositelno etih izrecheniy Rav Pappa ne privel etot priznak i ne sporil o tom, kto ih skazal.

Po ego mneniyu, Rav Malkiya skazal chetyre gалахot: tri gалахot, otnosyashchiesya k Mishna i barayte, i odnu — o pepelе posle prozhiga [privodimuyu v nashem otрывke], otnosyashchuyusya k sluham. A Rav Malkio skazal dva izrecheniya.

A vot tvoy priznak

chtoby ty ne pereputal versiyu teksta:

Barayta,

slovo zhens kogo roda, schitaetsya podobnoy

«tsaritse»

[tsaritse] po sravneniyu so sluhom amoraim.

Ved barayta ili Mishna vazhnee, chem sluh, tak kak esli amora peredal sluh, protivorechashchiy Mishna ili barayte, ego slova otvergayutsya pered nimi.

I tak kak Mishna ili barayta schitaetsya «tsaritse» [barayta], eto budet priznakom imeni Rav Malkiya: imenno on skazal izrechenie, otnosyashcheesya k Mishna.

Ved imya Rav «Malkiya» pohozh e na «tsaritsu», slovo zhens kogo roda.

A imya Rav «Malkio» pohozh e na «tsarya», slovo muzhskogo roda.

I my zadali vopros:

v chem mezhdu nimi razlichie,

to est v kakoy gалахe slova Rav Nahmana, syna Rav Iki, otlichayutsya ot slov Rav Pappy?

Gemara obyasnyaet:

Razlichie mezhdu nimi — v rabynyah,

to est v gалахe, skazannoy po povodu rabyn.

Po mneniyu Rav Nahmana, syna Rav Iki, etu gалахu skazal Rav Malkio.

A po mneniyu Rav Pappy, eto skazal Rav Malkiya, tak kak, po mneniyu Rav Pappy, vse gалахot, otnosyashchiesya k Mishna, skazal tolko Rav Malkiya.

Rav Bivi, syn Avaye, strogo treboval

osteregatsya

dazhe ukola lancetoy

[otverstiya, kotoroe master delaet v tele dlya puska krovi], potomu chto on vyglyadit kak tatuировка.

Rav Ashi skazal: vo всяkom meste, gde est rana,

ne nuzhno opasatsya, dazhe esli eto vyglyadit kak tatuировка, tak kak

rana svidetelstvuet o prichine

— znak na tele voznik iz-za rany. V etom on sporit s Rav Malkiey, kotoryy zapreshchaet klast pepel posle prozhiga na ranu.

Mishna:

A.

Nazir, kotoryy pil vino ves den, podlegaet nakazaniyu lish

odin

raz

malkot. Za to, chto on vypil v techenie vremeni, sootvetstvuyushchego prodolzheniyu rechi posle preduprezhdeniya.

A esli ego predupredili i

skazali emu

mezhdu odnim pitiyem i drugim:

«Ne pey! Ne pey!»

i

posle kazhdogo preduprezhdeniya

on

pil

vino,

to

podlegaet nakazaniyu za kazhduyu vypivku

iz teh, posle kotoryh ego predupredili i on vypil.

B. Naz ir [a takzhe koen], kotoryy

oskvernyalsya mertvymi ves den,

podlegaet

nakazaniyu lish

odin

raz

malkot.

A esli ego predupredili i

skazali emu

mezhdu odnim oskverneniem i drugim:

«Ne oskvernyaysya! Ne oskvernyaysya! I

posle kazhdogo preduprezhdeniya

on

snova

oskvernyalsya,

to

podlegaet nakazaniyu za kazhdoe iz nih

— za kazhdyy raz, kogda on udalialsya ot istochnika oskverneniya, ego preduprezhdali, a zatem on snova oskvernyalsya.

V. Naz ir, kotoryy

strig

volosy

ves den

bez pereryva,

podlegaet nakazaniyu lish

odin

raz

malkot.

A esli ego predupredili i

skazali emu

mezhdu odnim strizheniem i drugim:

«Ne strigis! Ne strigis! I

kazhdyy raz posle preduprezhdeniya

on

strig

volosy,

to

podlegaet nakazaniyu za kazhdoe iz nih

— za kazhdyy raz, kogda on strig volosy posle preduprezhdeniya.

Do sih por Mishna govorila o naziree; dalshe rech idet o lyubom evree.

G.

Tot, kto nosil odezhdu shaatnez ves den, podlegaet nakazaniyu lish odin raz.

A esli ego predupredili i

skazali emu

mezhdu odnim nad evaniem i drugim:

«Ne n adevay! Ne n adevay! I

kazhdyy raz posle preduprezhdeniya

on

razdev alsya i

snova odevalsya,

[dazhe esli on deystvitelno ne snyal odezhdu, a tolko vysunul golovu i vstalil ee obratno mezhdu odnim preduprezhdeniem i drugim], to

podlegaet nakazaniyu za kazhdoe iz nih

— za kazhdyy raz, kogda on razdevalsya i odevalsya.