Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

April 15, 2016 | 讝壮 讘谞讬住谉 转砖注状讜

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Kiddushin 35

The discussion of聽how to derive from the Torah that聽women are obligated in non time bound positive commandments and exempted from time bound ones is continued. 聽The gemara then brings 3 different sources for why women are obligated in negative commandments and has a discussion explaining the differences between all聽3 and why they are each necessary. 聽There are a few negative commandments that women are exempt from. 聽The derivation of these is discussed at length. 聽And another one is added by Isi in addition to the ones mentioned in the mishna and a derivation is brought and analyzed.


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

讜诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讘专讜拽讗 讚讗诪专 注诇 砖谞讬讛诐 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讜讬讘专讱 讗转诐 讗诇讛讬诐 驻专讜 讜专讘讜 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 诪砖讜诐 讚讛讜讛 转诇诪讜讚 转讜专讛 讜驻讚讬讜谉 讛讘谉 砖谞讬 讻转讜讘讬诐 讛讘讗讬诐 讻讗讞讚 讜讻诇 砖谞讬 讻转讜讘讬诐 讛讘讗讬诐 讻讗讞讚 讗讬谉 诪诇诪讚讬谉

The Gemara asks: And according to the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka, who says that with regard to both of them, men and women, the verse states: 鈥淎nd God blessed them, and God said to them: Be fruitful and multiply, replenish the earth and conquer it鈥 (Genesis 1:28), what can be said? According to his opinion, women are exempt from only one positive mitzva that is not time bound, Torah study; why not derive other mitzvot from this case? The Gemara answers: The reason this is not a difficulty is because Torah study and the redemption of the firstborn son, from which women are also exempt, are two verses that come as one, and any two verses that come as one do not teach a precedent.

讜诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讘专讜拽讗 谞诪讬 谞讬讛讜讜 驻专讬讛 讜专讘讬讛 讜诪讜专讗 砖谞讬 讻转讜讘讬诐 讛讘讗讬诐 讻讗讞讚 讜讗讬谉 诪诇诪讚讬谉 爪专讬讻讬 讚讗讬 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 诪讜专讗 讜诇讗 讻转讘 驻专讬讛 讜专讘讬讛 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讜讻讘砖讛 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讗讬砖 讚讚专讻讜 诇讻讘砖 讗讬谉 讗砖讛 讚讗讬谉 讚专讻讛 诇讻讘砖 诇讗

The Gemara asks: And according to the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka as well, let procreation, which he maintains applies to women, and fear of one鈥檚 mother and father be considered two verses that come as one and they should not teach a precedent. The Gemara answers: Both cases are necessary. As, if the Merciful One had written only that women are obligated in fear of their parents, and had not written that they are obligated in procreation, I would say that as the Merciful One states: 鈥淏e fruitful and multiply, replenish the earth and conquer it鈥 (Genesis 1:28), this leads to the conclusion that women are exempt from procreation, by the following reasoning: As it is the manner of a man to go to war and to conquer, yes, he is obligated in procreation, but as it is not the manner of a woman to conquer, she is not obligated in procreation.

讜讗讬 讻转讘 驻专讬讛 讜专讘讬讛 讜诇讗 讻转讘 诪讜专讗 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讗讬砖 讚住讬驻拽 讘讬讚讜 诇注砖讜转 讗讬谉 讗砖讛 讚讗讬谉 住讬驻拽 讘讬讚讛 诇注砖讜转 诇讗 讜讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬谉 住讬驻拽 讘讬讚讛 诇注砖讜转 诇讗 转转讞讬讬讘 讻诇诇 爪专讬讻讗

And if the Merciful One had written only that women are obligated in the mitzva of procreation, and had not written that they are obligated to fear their parents, I would say: With regard to a man, as it is in his power to perform this mitzva, yes, he is obligated to fear his mother and father, but with regard to a woman, as it is not in her power to perform this mitzva when she is married, since her obligations to her husband may prevent her from doing so, she is not obligated. And as it is not in her power to perform this mitzva when she is married, perhaps women should not be obligated at all and there should be no difference between a married and an unmarried woman. Therefore, it is necessary for the Torah to state that women are obligated in both procreation and the fear of parents, and these are not considered two verses that come as one.

讛谞讬讞讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 砖谞讬 讻转讜讘讬诐 讛讘讗讬诐 讻讗讞讚 讗讬谉 诪诇诪讚讬谉 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪诇诪讚讬谉 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讗诪专 专讘讗 驻驻讜谞讗讬 讬讚注讬 诇讛 诇讟注诪讗 讚讛讗 诪讬诇转讗

The Gemara notes that the earlier question remains difficult: This works out well according to the one who says that two verses that come as one do not teach a precedent. But according to the one who says that two verses that come as one do teach a precedent, what can be said? According to this opinion it can be derived that women are obligated in positive, time-bound mitzvot from matza and assembly, and that they are exempt from positive mitzvot that are not time bound, from Torah study and the redemption of the firstborn son. Rava said: The Sages of Pafunya know the reason for this matter.

讜诪谞讜 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 讬注拽讘 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讛讬讛 诇讱 诇讗讜转 注诇 讬讚讱 讜诇讝讻专讜谉 讘讬谉 注讬谞讬讱 诇诪注谉 转讛讬讛 转讜专转 讛壮 讘驻讬讱 讛讜拽砖讛 讻诇 讛转讜专讛 讻讜诇讛 诇转驻讬诇讬谉 诪讛 转驻讬诇讬谉 诪爪讜转 注砖讛 砖讛讝诪谉 讙专诪讗 讜谞砖讬诐 驻讟讜专讜转 讗祝 讻诇 诪爪讜转 注砖讛 砖讛讝诪谉 讙专诪讗 谞砖讬诐 驻讟讜专讜转 讜诪讚诪爪讜转 注砖讛 砖讛讝诪谉 讙专诪讗 谞砖讬诐 驻讟讜专讜转 诪讻诇诇 讚诪爪讜转 注砖讛 砖诇讗 讛讝诪谉 讙专诪讗 谞砖讬诐 讞讬讬讘讜转

The Gemara comments: And who is the scholar called by the nickname: The Sages of Paphunya? It is Rav A岣 bar Ya鈥檃kov, who said as follows: The verse states with regard to phylacteries: 鈥淎nd it shall be a sign for you on your arm and for a memorial between your eyes, that the Torah of the Lord may be in your mouth鈥 (Exodus 13:9). In this manner the entire Torah is juxtaposed to phylacteries: Just as donning phylacteries is a positive, time-bound mitzva and women are exempt from it, so too are women exempt from every positive, time-bound mitzva in the Torah. And from the fact that women are exempt from every positive, time-bound mitzva, one can learn by inference that women are obligated in every positive mitzva that is not time bound.

讛谞讬讞讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 转驻讬诇讬谉 诪爪讜转 注砖讛 砖讛讝诪谉 讙专诪讗 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 转驻讬诇讬谉 诪爪讜转 注砖讛 砖诇讗 讛讝诪谉 讙专诪讗 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 诪讗谉 砖诪注转 诇讬讛 讚讗诪专 转驻讬诇讬谉 诪爪讜转 注砖讛 砖诇讗 讛讝诪谉 讙专诪讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜住讘专 诇讛 砖谞讬 讻转讜讘讬诐 讛讘讗讬诐 讻讗讞讚 讜讻诇 砖谞讬 讻转讜讘讬诐 讛讘讗讬诐 讻讗讞讚 讗讬谉 诪诇诪讚讬谉

The Gemara asks: This works out well according to the one who says that the mitzva of donning phylacteries is a positive, time-bound mitzva. But according to the one who says that donning phylacteries is a positive mitzva that is not time bound, as it is applicable the entire year, day and night, what can be said? The Gemara answers: Who did you hear who said that donning phylacteries is a positive mitzva that is not time bound? It is Rabbi Meir, and he holds that matza and assembly are verses that come as one, and he further maintains that any two verses that come as one do not teach a precedent.

讜诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讗诪专 砖谞讬 讻转讜讘讬诐 讛讘讗讬诐 讻讗讞讚 诪诇诪讚讬谉 讜转驻讬诇讬谉 诪爪讜转 注砖讛 砖诇讗 讛讝诪谉 讙专诪讗 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 诪砖讜诐 讚讛讜讗讬 诪爪讛 砖诪讞讛 讜讛拽讛诇 砖诇砖讛 讻转讜讘讬诐 讛讘讗讬诐 讻讗讞讚 讜砖诇砖讛 讻转讜讘讬诐 讛讘讗讬诐 讻讗讞讚 讗讬谉 诪诇诪讚讬谉

The Gemara asks: And according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who says that two verses that come as one do teach a precedent, and who also says that donning phylacteries is a positive mitzva that is not time bound, what can be said? The Gemara answers: It is not derived from here that women are obligated in positive, time-bound mitzvot because the verses that mention matza, rejoicing, and assembly are three verses that come as one, and everyone agrees three verses that come as one do not teach a precedent.

讜讻诇 诪爪讜转 诇讗 转注砖讛 讜讻讜壮 诪谞讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讜讻谉 转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讗诪专 拽专讗 讗讬砖 讗讜 讗砖讛 讻讬 讬注砖讜 诪讻诇 讞讟讗转 讛讗讚诐 讛砖讜讛 讛讻转讜讘 讗砖讛 诇讗讬砖 诇讻诇 注讜谞砖讬诐 砖讘转讜专讛

搂 The mishna further teaches: And with regard to all prohibitions, whether or not they are time bound, both men and women are obligated to observe them. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? Rav Yehuda says that Rav says, and likewise the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: The verse states with regard to a guilt-offering: 鈥淲hen a man or woman shall commit any sin that a person commits鈥 (Numbers 5:6). The verse equates a woman to a man with regard to all punishments in the Torah, as a woman is also required to bring an offering for atonement.

讚讘讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 转谞讗 讗诪专 拽专讗 讗砖专 转砖讬诐 诇驻谞讬讛诐 讛砖讜讛 讛讻转讜讘 讗砖讛 诇讗讬砖 诇讻诇 讚讬谞讬诐 砖讘转讜专讛 讚讘讬 讞讝拽讬讛 转谞讗 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讛诪讬转 讗讬砖 讗讜 讗砖讛 讛砖讜讛 讛讻转讜讘 讗砖讛 诇讗讬砖 诇讻诇 诪讬转讜转 砖讘转讜专讛

The school of Rabbi Eliezer taught as follows. The verse states: 鈥淣ow these are the ordinances which you shall set before them鈥 (Exodus 21:1), stating 鈥渢hem鈥 in the plural. This verse equates a woman to a man with regard to all judgments in the Torah, i.e., monetary cases and damages. The school of 岣zkiyya taught: The verse states, with regard to the ransom one pays if his animal killed a person: 鈥淎nd killed a man or woman鈥 (Exodus 21:29). Here too, the verse equates a woman to a man, with regard to all deaths in the Torah, i.e., the same halakha applies to an animal that kills either a man or a woman.

讜爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 讛讱 拽诪讬讬转讗 诪砖讜诐 讻驻专讛 讞住 专讞诪谞讗 注诇讛 讗讘诇 讚讬谞讬谉 讗讬诪讗 讗讬砖 讚讘专 诪砖讗 讜诪转谉 讗讬谉 讗砖讛 诇讗

The Gemara comments: And it is necessary to state all three of these verses. As, if the Torah had taught us only this first case, with regard to a woman鈥檚 obligation to sacrifice guilt-offerings, I would say that the Merciful One has pity on her due to atonement, i.e., God gave her the possibility to atone for her sin through an offering. But with regard to monetary judgments, I would say that with regard to a man, who generally conducts business negotiations, yes, these halakhot apply to him, but in the case of a woman, who generally does not conduct business negotiations, no, the halakhot of monetary judgments do not apply to her.

讜讗讬 讗砖诪讜注讬谞谉 讛讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讞讬讜转讛 讛讬讗 讗讘诇 讻讜驻专 讗讬诪讗

And similarly if the Torah had taught us only this case of monetary judgments, I would say that these judgments apply to a woman, because there are circumstances where engaging in business is her livelihood. But with regard to the ransom that is paid when one鈥檚 animal killed someone, I would say:

讗讬砖 讚讘专 诪爪讜转 讗讬谉 讗砖讛 诇讗 讜讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 讛讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讗讬讻讗 讗讬讘讜讚 谞砖诪讛 讞住 专讞诪谞讗 注诇讛 讗讘诇 讛谞讱 转专转讬 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗

If the animal killed a man, who is commanded in all mitzvot, yes, its owner should have to pay the ransom, but if the animal killed a woman, who is obligated in only some mitzvot, no, he is exempt from the ransom. And conversely: If the Torah had taught us that men and women are equated only in this case of the ransom, one might say that because there is the loss of life the Merciful One has pity on her and therefore the owner of the animal is always obligated to pay the ransom. But with regard to those two other categories, I might say no, a woman is not equated to a man. Therefore it was necessary to mention them all.

讞讜抓 诪讘诇 转拽讬祝 讜讘诇 转砖讞讬转 讻讜壮 讘砖诇诪讗 讘诇 转讟诪讗 诇诪转讬诐 讚讻转讬讘 讗诪专 讗诇 讛讻讛谞讬诐 讘谞讬 讗讛专谉 讘谞讬 讗讛专谉 讜诇讗 讘谞讜转 讗讛专谉 讗诇讗 讘诇 转拽讬祝 讜讘诇 转砖讞讬转 诪谞诇谉

搂 The mishna teaches that women are obligated in all prohibitions except for the prohibitions of: Do not round the corners of one鈥檚 head, and: Do not destroy the corners of your beard, and: Do not contract ritual impurity from a corpse. The Gemara asks: Granted, a woman of priestly lineage is not obligated in the mitzva of: Do not contract ritual impurity from a corpse, as it is written: 鈥淪peak to the priests, the sons of Aaron, and say to them: None shall become impure for the dead among his people鈥 (Leviticus 21:1). This verse teaches that the prohibition applies to the sons of Aaron, but not the daughters of Aaron. But from where do we derive the prohibitions of: Do not round the corners of one鈥檚 head, and: Do not destroy the corners of your beard?

讚讻转讬讘 诇讗 转拽驻讜 驻讗转 专讗砖讻诐 讜诇讗 转砖讞讬转 讗转 驻讗转 讝拽谞讱 讻诇 砖讬砖谞讜 讘讛砖讞转讛 讬砖谞讜 讘讛拽驻讛 讜讛谞讬 谞砖讬 讛讜讗讬诇 讜诇讗 讗讬转谞讛讜 讘讛砖讞转讛 诇讬转谞讛讜 讘讛拽驻讛

The Gemara answers that this is as it is written: 鈥淵ou shall not round the corners of your head and you shall not destroy the corners of your beard鈥 (Leviticus 19:27). The juxtaposition of the two prohibitions teaches that anyone who is included in the prohibition against destroying the beard is included in the prohibition against rounding the head. And since these women are not included in the prohibition against destroying, they are also not included in the prohibition against rounding the head.

讜诪谞诇谉 讚诇讗 讗讬转谞讛讜 讘讛砖讞转讛 讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 住讘专讗 讚讛讗 诇讗 讗讬转 诇讛讜 讝拽谉 讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 拽专讗 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 诇讗 转拽驻讜 驻讗转 专讗砖讻诐 讜诇讗 转砖讞讬转 讗转 驻讗转 讝拽谞讱

The Gemara asks: And from where do we derive that women are not obligated in the prohibition against destroying the corners of one鈥檚 beard? The Gemara answers: If you wish, propose a logical reason, as ordinarily women do not have a beard. And if you wish, cite a verse that teaches this point, as the verse states: 鈥淵ou shall not round the corners of your head [roshekhem] and you shall not destroy the corners of your beard [zekanekha]鈥 (Leviticus 19:27).

诪讚砖谞讬 拽专讗 讘讚讬讘讜专讬讛 讚讗诐 讻谉 谞讬讻转讜讘 专讞诪谞讗 驻讗转 讝拽谞讻诐 诪讗讬 讝拽谞讱 讝拽谞讱 讜诇讗 讝拽谉 讗砖转讱

The Gemara explains: From the fact that the verse changed its language, as the term 鈥測our head [roshekhem]鈥 is in the plural while 鈥測our beard [zekanekha]鈥 is in the singular, it can be inferred that if so, if the prohibition against destroying one鈥檚 beard applied to everyone, let the Merciful One write: And you shall not destroy the corners of your beards [zekanekhem], in the plural, so that the end of the verse parallels the beginning. What is indicated by the fact that the verse states: 鈥淎nd you shall not destroy the corners of your beard [zekanekha],鈥 in the singular? This serves to teach: Your beard is included, but not your wife鈥檚 beard.

讜诇讗 讜讛转谞讬讗 讝拽谉 讗砖讛 讜讛住专讬住 砖讛注诇讜 砖注专 讛专讬 讛谉 讻讝拽谉 诇讻诇 讚讘专讬讛诐 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 诇讛砖讞转讛

The Gemara asks: And is a woman not included in this prohibition? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Nega鈥檌m 4:8): The beard of a woman and that of a eunuch, if they grow facial hair, are considered like a beard for all matters. What, is it not the case that this statement is referring to the prohibition against destroying?

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诇讛砖讞转讛 诇讗 诪爪讬转 讗诪专转 讚讬诇讬祝 驻讗转 驻讗转 诪讘谞讬 讗讛专谉 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 谞砖讬诐 驻讟讜专讜转 讗祝 讻讗谉 谞砖讬诐 驻讟讜专讜转

Abaye said: You cannot say that the baraita is referring to destroying, as it is derived that a woman is exempt through the verbal analogy of 鈥渢he corners of your beard鈥 (Leviticus 19:27) here and 鈥渢he corners of their beard鈥 (Leviticus 21:5) from the sons of Aaron: Just as there, in the case of priests, women are certainly exempt from the mitzva, as the verse is referring to the male descendants of Aaron who perform the Temple service and not to women, so too here, with regard to the prohibition against destroying one鈥檚 beard, which is stated to all Jews, women are exempt. At this stage the Gemara assumes that the exclusion of women denoted by the verse: 鈥淪peak to the priests, the sons of Aaron鈥 (Leviticus 21:1), which excludes women, is applied to all the mitzvot stated in that chapter, including destroying the corners of one鈥檚 beard.

讜讗讬 住讘讬专讗 诇谉 讚讻讬 讻转讘 讘谞讬 讗讛专谉 讗讻讜诇讬讛 注谞讬谞讗 讻转讬讘 谞讬砖转讜拽 拽专讗 诪讬谞讬讛 讜转讬转讬 讘拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讜讗谞讗 讗诪讬谞讗 讜诪讛 讻讛谞讬诐 砖专讬讘讛 讘讛诐 讛讻转讜讘 诪爪讜转 讬转讬专讜转 讘谞讬 讗讛专谉 讜诇讗 讘谞讜转 讗讛专谉 讬砖专讗诇 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉

The Gemara asks: But if we maintain that when the Merciful One writes: 鈥淭he sons of Aaron鈥 (Leviticus 21:1), it is written with regard to the entire manner of that chapter, including the prohibition against destroying one鈥檚 beard, let the verse, i.e., the Torah, be silent and not state about this prohibition concerning all Jews. And this halakha could be derived through an a fortiori inference, as I could say the following: And if with regard to priests, for whom the verse includes additional mitzvot, this prohibition applies only to the sons of Aaron and not the daughters of Aaron, is it not all the more so the case with regard to Israelites, who have fewer mitzvot, that only men should be obligated and not women?

讗讬 诇讗讜 讙讝讬专讛 砖讜讛 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讛驻住讬拽 讛注谞讬谉

The Gemara answers: Nevertheless, the verbal analogy is necessary. Were it not for the verbal analogy, I would say that the halakhot of ritual impurity concluded discussion of that matter. In other words, the exclusion of women denoted by the phrase 鈥渢he sons of Aaron鈥 applies only to the halakhot of impurity, which appear immediately after that phrase. Conversely, the other halakhot mentioned in this chapter, including the prohibition against destroying the beard, apply to women as well.

讛砖转讗 谞诪讬 谞讬诪讗 讛驻住讬拽 讛注谞讬谉 讜讗讬 诪砖讜诐 讙讝讬专讛 砖讜讛 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讻讚转谞讬讗 诇讗 讬讙诇讞讜 讬讻讜诇 讙讬诇讞讜 讘诪住驻专讬讬诐 讬讛讬讛 讞讬讬讘 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇讗 转砖讞讬转

The Gemara asks: If so, now too, let us say that the halakhot of ritual impurity concluded discussion of that matter, and the daughters of Aaron are also prohibited to destroy their beards. And if you maintain that the reason the prohibition stated with regard to priests does not apply to women is due to the verbal analogy employing the term 鈥渢he corners of,鈥 which serves to connect the halakha stated with regard to priests with the halakha stated with regard to all Jews, that verbal analogy is necessary for that which is taught in a baraita: The verse states with regard to priests: 鈥淣either shall they shave off the corners of their beard鈥 (Leviticus 21:5). One might have thought that a priest would be liable even if he shaved his beard with scissors. Therefore the verse states, in a command issued to all Jews: 鈥淎nd you shall not destroy the corners of your beard鈥 (Leviticus 19:27). This teaches that one is liable only for destroying the beard to the root, which is not achieved with scissors.

讬讻讜诇 诇拽讟讜 讘诪诇拽讟 讜讘专讛讬讟谞讬 讬讛讗 讞讬讬讘 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇讗 讬讙诇讞讜 讛讗 讻讬爪讚 讙讬诇讜讞 砖讬砖 讘讛 讛砖讞转讛 讛讜讬 讗讜诪专 讝讛 转注专

The baraita continues: One might have thought that if he extracted his hairs with tweezers, which uproot hairs, or small planes [uvirhitni], he should likewise be liable for destroying his hair. The verse therefore states: 鈥淣either shall they shave off the corners of their beard,鈥 to teach that shaving alone is prohibited and these actions are not considered shaving. How can both these requirements for the prohibition be met? The verse is referring to a type of shaving that involves destruction. You must say this is shaving with a razor. According to this baraita, the verbal analogy is necessary to define the action included in the prohibition against destroying, not to teach who is included in the prohibition.

讗诐 讻谉 谞讬讻转讜讘 拽专讗 讗转 砖讘讝拽谞讱 诪讗讬 驻讗转 讝拽谞讱 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 转专转讬

The Gemara explains: If it is so that the verbal analogy teaches only which action is included in the prohibition against destroying, let the verse write: That which is of your beard. What is added by the expression 鈥渢he corners of your beard鈥? Conclude two conclusions from it, both the definition of the prohibition against shaving and the exemption of women.

讜讗诇讗 讛讗 讚转谞讬讗 讝拽谉 讛讗砖讛 讜讛住专讬住 砖讛注诇讜 砖注专 讛专讬 讛谉 讻讝拽谉 诇讻诇 讚讘专讬讛诐 诇诪讗讬 讛诇讻转讗 讗诪专 诪专 讝讜讟专讗 诇讟讜诪讗转 谞讙注讬诐

The Gemara returns to its question. But that which is taught in the baraita: The beard of a woman and that of a eunuch, if they grew facial hair, are considered like a beard for all matters, with regard to what halakha is this stated? Mar Zutra says: It is stated with regard to ritual impurity from leprosy. A leprous sore in the beard of a woman or a eunuch is treated like an affliction of the beard, not like an affliction on the skin. Different halakhot apply to leprous sores that develop on various parts of the body.

讟讜诪讗转 谞讙注讬诐 讘讛讚讬讗 讻转讬讘讗 讜讗讬砖 讗讜 讗砖讛 讻讬 讬讛讬讛 讘讜 谞讙注 讘专讗砖 讗讜 讘讝拽谉 讗诇讗 讗诪专 诪专 讝讜讟专讗 诇讟讛专转 谞讙注讬诐

The Gemara objects: Concerning ritual impurity from leprosy, it is written explicitly: 鈥淎nd when a man or woman has a plague upon the head or upon the beard鈥 (Leviticus 13:29). This indicates that there is no difference between a man and woman with regard to the beard in the case of leprosy. The baraita would not state a halakha that is explicit in the verse. Rather, Mar Zutra says: This baraita is referring to ritual purification from leprosy, i.e., women can also be purified from leprosy of the beard.

讟讛专转 谞讙注讬诐 谞诪讬 驻砖讬讟讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讘转 讟讜诪讗讛 讛讬讗 讘转 讟讛专讛 讛讬讗 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 诇爪讚讚讬诐 讻转讬讘 讗讬砖 讗讜 讗砖讛 讻讬 讬讛讬讛 讘讜 谞讙注 讘专讗砖 讗讜 讘讝拽谉 讛讚专 讗转讗谉 诇讗讬砖 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara asks: With regard to ritual purification from leprosy it is also obvious: Since impurity applies to a woman, purity likewise applies to her. The Gemara answers: It was necessary to state this with regard to the impurity of afflictions of the beard, as it might enter your mind to say that this verse is written disjunctively, i.e., that the phrase: 鈥淎nd when a man or woman has a plague upon the head,鈥 applies to both a man or a woman; whereas when it states: 鈥淥r upon the beard,鈥 we have come back to the case of a man alone. Therefore the baraita teaches us that this phrase is not referring solely to a man, as there is no difference between a man and a woman with regard to leprosy.

讗讬住讬 转谞讬 讗祝 讘诇 讬拽专讞讜 谞砖讬诐 驻讟讜专讜转 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚讗讬住讬 讚讚专讬砖 讛讻讬 讘谞讬诐 讗转诐 诇讛壮 讗诇讛讬讻诐 诇讗 转转讙讚讚讜 讜诇讗 转砖讬诪讜 拽专讞讛 讘讬谉 注讬谞讬讻诐 诇诪转 讻讬 注诐 拽讚讜砖 讗转讛 诇讛壮 讗诇讛讬讱 讘谞讬诐 讜诇讗 讘谞讜转 诇拽专讞讛

Isi taught in a baraita: Women are also exempt from the prohibition: Do not make baldness upon your heads, a prohibition against tearing out one鈥檚 hair in grief over someone鈥檚 death. The Gemara asks: What is the reason of Isi? The Gemara explains that he teaches as follows: The verse states: 鈥淵ou are the sons of the Lord your God; you shall not cut yourselves, nor make any baldness between your eyes for the dead. For you are a holy people to the Lord your God鈥 (Deuteronomy 14:1鈥2). This verse, which applies to sons and not daughters, is referring to causing baldness, and therefore this prohibition includes only men.

讗转讛 讗讜诪专 诇拽专讞讛 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 诇讙讚讬讚讛 讻砖讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讻讬 注诐 拽讚讜砖 讗转讛 诇讛壮 讗诇讛讬讱 讛专讬 讙讚讬讚讛 讗诪讜专 讛讗 诪讛 讗谞讬 诪拽讬讬诐 讘谞讬诐 讜诇讗 讘谞讜转 诇拽专讞讛

The Gemara asks: Do you say that this is referring to causing baldness, or is it perhaps referring only to the prohibition against cutting, which appears first? The Gemara answers that when it states: 鈥淔or you are a holy people to the Lord your God,鈥 it is stated with regard to the prohibition against cutting, and this verse applies to both men and women, as they are all members of God鈥檚 people. How then do I realize and explain the emphasis on sons and not daughters? This is referring to the prohibition against causing baldness.

讜诪讛 专讗讬转 诇专讘讜转 讗转 讛讙讚讬讚讛 讜诇讛讜爪讬讗 讗转 讛拽专讞讛 诪专讘讛 讗谞讬 讗转 讛讙讚讬讚讛 砖讬砖谞讛 讘诪拽讜诐 讛砖注专 讜砖诇讗 讘诪拽讜诐 砖注专 讜诪讜爪讬讗 讗谞讬 讗转 讛拽专讞讛 砖讗讬谞讛 讗诇讗 讘诪拽讜诐 砖注专

The Gemara asks: And what did you see to include cutting and to exclude causing baldness? Perhaps the opposite is true, and causing baldness applies to men and women whereas cutting applies only to men. The Gemara answers: I include cutting, whose prohibition is broader, as it is applicable both in a place of hair and not in a place of hair; and I exclude causing baldness, which is more limited, as it applies only in a place of hair.

讜讗讬诪讗 讘谞讬诐 讜诇讗 讘谞讜转 讘讬谉 诇拽专讞讛 讘讬谉 诇讙讚讬讚讛 讜讻讬 讻转讘 讻讬 注诐 拽讚讜砖 讗转讛 诇讛壮 讗诇讛讬讱 讘砖专讬讟讛 讛讜讗 讚讻转讬讘 拽住讘专 讗讬住讬 砖专讬讟讛 讜讙讚讬讚讛

The Gemara asks: But one can say that the limitation of sons and not daughters applies both to causing baldness and to cutting, and when the verse writes: 鈥淔or you are a holy people to the Lord your God,鈥 that is written with regard to scoring oneself. The prohibition against scoring oneself is derived from a verbal analogy from a verse stated with regard to priests (see Leviticus 21:5), which applies to both men and women. The Gemara answers: Isi maintains that scoring oneself and cutting

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Kiddushin 35

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Kiddushin 35

讜诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讘专讜拽讗 讚讗诪专 注诇 砖谞讬讛诐 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讜讬讘专讱 讗转诐 讗诇讛讬诐 驻专讜 讜专讘讜 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 诪砖讜诐 讚讛讜讛 转诇诪讜讚 转讜专讛 讜驻讚讬讜谉 讛讘谉 砖谞讬 讻转讜讘讬诐 讛讘讗讬诐 讻讗讞讚 讜讻诇 砖谞讬 讻转讜讘讬诐 讛讘讗讬诐 讻讗讞讚 讗讬谉 诪诇诪讚讬谉

The Gemara asks: And according to the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka, who says that with regard to both of them, men and women, the verse states: 鈥淎nd God blessed them, and God said to them: Be fruitful and multiply, replenish the earth and conquer it鈥 (Genesis 1:28), what can be said? According to his opinion, women are exempt from only one positive mitzva that is not time bound, Torah study; why not derive other mitzvot from this case? The Gemara answers: The reason this is not a difficulty is because Torah study and the redemption of the firstborn son, from which women are also exempt, are two verses that come as one, and any two verses that come as one do not teach a precedent.

讜诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讘专讜拽讗 谞诪讬 谞讬讛讜讜 驻专讬讛 讜专讘讬讛 讜诪讜专讗 砖谞讬 讻转讜讘讬诐 讛讘讗讬诐 讻讗讞讚 讜讗讬谉 诪诇诪讚讬谉 爪专讬讻讬 讚讗讬 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 诪讜专讗 讜诇讗 讻转讘 驻专讬讛 讜专讘讬讛 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讜讻讘砖讛 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讗讬砖 讚讚专讻讜 诇讻讘砖 讗讬谉 讗砖讛 讚讗讬谉 讚专讻讛 诇讻讘砖 诇讗

The Gemara asks: And according to the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka as well, let procreation, which he maintains applies to women, and fear of one鈥檚 mother and father be considered two verses that come as one and they should not teach a precedent. The Gemara answers: Both cases are necessary. As, if the Merciful One had written only that women are obligated in fear of their parents, and had not written that they are obligated in procreation, I would say that as the Merciful One states: 鈥淏e fruitful and multiply, replenish the earth and conquer it鈥 (Genesis 1:28), this leads to the conclusion that women are exempt from procreation, by the following reasoning: As it is the manner of a man to go to war and to conquer, yes, he is obligated in procreation, but as it is not the manner of a woman to conquer, she is not obligated in procreation.

讜讗讬 讻转讘 驻专讬讛 讜专讘讬讛 讜诇讗 讻转讘 诪讜专讗 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讗讬砖 讚住讬驻拽 讘讬讚讜 诇注砖讜转 讗讬谉 讗砖讛 讚讗讬谉 住讬驻拽 讘讬讚讛 诇注砖讜转 诇讗 讜讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬谉 住讬驻拽 讘讬讚讛 诇注砖讜转 诇讗 转转讞讬讬讘 讻诇诇 爪专讬讻讗

And if the Merciful One had written only that women are obligated in the mitzva of procreation, and had not written that they are obligated to fear their parents, I would say: With regard to a man, as it is in his power to perform this mitzva, yes, he is obligated to fear his mother and father, but with regard to a woman, as it is not in her power to perform this mitzva when she is married, since her obligations to her husband may prevent her from doing so, she is not obligated. And as it is not in her power to perform this mitzva when she is married, perhaps women should not be obligated at all and there should be no difference between a married and an unmarried woman. Therefore, it is necessary for the Torah to state that women are obligated in both procreation and the fear of parents, and these are not considered two verses that come as one.

讛谞讬讞讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 砖谞讬 讻转讜讘讬诐 讛讘讗讬诐 讻讗讞讚 讗讬谉 诪诇诪讚讬谉 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪诇诪讚讬谉 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讗诪专 专讘讗 驻驻讜谞讗讬 讬讚注讬 诇讛 诇讟注诪讗 讚讛讗 诪讬诇转讗

The Gemara notes that the earlier question remains difficult: This works out well according to the one who says that two verses that come as one do not teach a precedent. But according to the one who says that two verses that come as one do teach a precedent, what can be said? According to this opinion it can be derived that women are obligated in positive, time-bound mitzvot from matza and assembly, and that they are exempt from positive mitzvot that are not time bound, from Torah study and the redemption of the firstborn son. Rava said: The Sages of Pafunya know the reason for this matter.

讜诪谞讜 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 讬注拽讘 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讛讬讛 诇讱 诇讗讜转 注诇 讬讚讱 讜诇讝讻专讜谉 讘讬谉 注讬谞讬讱 诇诪注谉 转讛讬讛 转讜专转 讛壮 讘驻讬讱 讛讜拽砖讛 讻诇 讛转讜专讛 讻讜诇讛 诇转驻讬诇讬谉 诪讛 转驻讬诇讬谉 诪爪讜转 注砖讛 砖讛讝诪谉 讙专诪讗 讜谞砖讬诐 驻讟讜专讜转 讗祝 讻诇 诪爪讜转 注砖讛 砖讛讝诪谉 讙专诪讗 谞砖讬诐 驻讟讜专讜转 讜诪讚诪爪讜转 注砖讛 砖讛讝诪谉 讙专诪讗 谞砖讬诐 驻讟讜专讜转 诪讻诇诇 讚诪爪讜转 注砖讛 砖诇讗 讛讝诪谉 讙专诪讗 谞砖讬诐 讞讬讬讘讜转

The Gemara comments: And who is the scholar called by the nickname: The Sages of Paphunya? It is Rav A岣 bar Ya鈥檃kov, who said as follows: The verse states with regard to phylacteries: 鈥淎nd it shall be a sign for you on your arm and for a memorial between your eyes, that the Torah of the Lord may be in your mouth鈥 (Exodus 13:9). In this manner the entire Torah is juxtaposed to phylacteries: Just as donning phylacteries is a positive, time-bound mitzva and women are exempt from it, so too are women exempt from every positive, time-bound mitzva in the Torah. And from the fact that women are exempt from every positive, time-bound mitzva, one can learn by inference that women are obligated in every positive mitzva that is not time bound.

讛谞讬讞讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 转驻讬诇讬谉 诪爪讜转 注砖讛 砖讛讝诪谉 讙专诪讗 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 转驻讬诇讬谉 诪爪讜转 注砖讛 砖诇讗 讛讝诪谉 讙专诪讗 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 诪讗谉 砖诪注转 诇讬讛 讚讗诪专 转驻讬诇讬谉 诪爪讜转 注砖讛 砖诇讗 讛讝诪谉 讙专诪讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜住讘专 诇讛 砖谞讬 讻转讜讘讬诐 讛讘讗讬诐 讻讗讞讚 讜讻诇 砖谞讬 讻转讜讘讬诐 讛讘讗讬诐 讻讗讞讚 讗讬谉 诪诇诪讚讬谉

The Gemara asks: This works out well according to the one who says that the mitzva of donning phylacteries is a positive, time-bound mitzva. But according to the one who says that donning phylacteries is a positive mitzva that is not time bound, as it is applicable the entire year, day and night, what can be said? The Gemara answers: Who did you hear who said that donning phylacteries is a positive mitzva that is not time bound? It is Rabbi Meir, and he holds that matza and assembly are verses that come as one, and he further maintains that any two verses that come as one do not teach a precedent.

讜诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讗诪专 砖谞讬 讻转讜讘讬诐 讛讘讗讬诐 讻讗讞讚 诪诇诪讚讬谉 讜转驻讬诇讬谉 诪爪讜转 注砖讛 砖诇讗 讛讝诪谉 讙专诪讗 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 诪砖讜诐 讚讛讜讗讬 诪爪讛 砖诪讞讛 讜讛拽讛诇 砖诇砖讛 讻转讜讘讬诐 讛讘讗讬诐 讻讗讞讚 讜砖诇砖讛 讻转讜讘讬诐 讛讘讗讬诐 讻讗讞讚 讗讬谉 诪诇诪讚讬谉

The Gemara asks: And according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who says that two verses that come as one do teach a precedent, and who also says that donning phylacteries is a positive mitzva that is not time bound, what can be said? The Gemara answers: It is not derived from here that women are obligated in positive, time-bound mitzvot because the verses that mention matza, rejoicing, and assembly are three verses that come as one, and everyone agrees three verses that come as one do not teach a precedent.

讜讻诇 诪爪讜转 诇讗 转注砖讛 讜讻讜壮 诪谞讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讜讻谉 转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讗诪专 拽专讗 讗讬砖 讗讜 讗砖讛 讻讬 讬注砖讜 诪讻诇 讞讟讗转 讛讗讚诐 讛砖讜讛 讛讻转讜讘 讗砖讛 诇讗讬砖 诇讻诇 注讜谞砖讬诐 砖讘转讜专讛

搂 The mishna further teaches: And with regard to all prohibitions, whether or not they are time bound, both men and women are obligated to observe them. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? Rav Yehuda says that Rav says, and likewise the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: The verse states with regard to a guilt-offering: 鈥淲hen a man or woman shall commit any sin that a person commits鈥 (Numbers 5:6). The verse equates a woman to a man with regard to all punishments in the Torah, as a woman is also required to bring an offering for atonement.

讚讘讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 转谞讗 讗诪专 拽专讗 讗砖专 转砖讬诐 诇驻谞讬讛诐 讛砖讜讛 讛讻转讜讘 讗砖讛 诇讗讬砖 诇讻诇 讚讬谞讬诐 砖讘转讜专讛 讚讘讬 讞讝拽讬讛 转谞讗 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讛诪讬转 讗讬砖 讗讜 讗砖讛 讛砖讜讛 讛讻转讜讘 讗砖讛 诇讗讬砖 诇讻诇 诪讬转讜转 砖讘转讜专讛

The school of Rabbi Eliezer taught as follows. The verse states: 鈥淣ow these are the ordinances which you shall set before them鈥 (Exodus 21:1), stating 鈥渢hem鈥 in the plural. This verse equates a woman to a man with regard to all judgments in the Torah, i.e., monetary cases and damages. The school of 岣zkiyya taught: The verse states, with regard to the ransom one pays if his animal killed a person: 鈥淎nd killed a man or woman鈥 (Exodus 21:29). Here too, the verse equates a woman to a man, with regard to all deaths in the Torah, i.e., the same halakha applies to an animal that kills either a man or a woman.

讜爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 讛讱 拽诪讬讬转讗 诪砖讜诐 讻驻专讛 讞住 专讞诪谞讗 注诇讛 讗讘诇 讚讬谞讬谉 讗讬诪讗 讗讬砖 讚讘专 诪砖讗 讜诪转谉 讗讬谉 讗砖讛 诇讗

The Gemara comments: And it is necessary to state all three of these verses. As, if the Torah had taught us only this first case, with regard to a woman鈥檚 obligation to sacrifice guilt-offerings, I would say that the Merciful One has pity on her due to atonement, i.e., God gave her the possibility to atone for her sin through an offering. But with regard to monetary judgments, I would say that with regard to a man, who generally conducts business negotiations, yes, these halakhot apply to him, but in the case of a woman, who generally does not conduct business negotiations, no, the halakhot of monetary judgments do not apply to her.

讜讗讬 讗砖诪讜注讬谞谉 讛讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讞讬讜转讛 讛讬讗 讗讘诇 讻讜驻专 讗讬诪讗

And similarly if the Torah had taught us only this case of monetary judgments, I would say that these judgments apply to a woman, because there are circumstances where engaging in business is her livelihood. But with regard to the ransom that is paid when one鈥檚 animal killed someone, I would say:

讗讬砖 讚讘专 诪爪讜转 讗讬谉 讗砖讛 诇讗 讜讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 讛讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讗讬讻讗 讗讬讘讜讚 谞砖诪讛 讞住 专讞诪谞讗 注诇讛 讗讘诇 讛谞讱 转专转讬 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗

If the animal killed a man, who is commanded in all mitzvot, yes, its owner should have to pay the ransom, but if the animal killed a woman, who is obligated in only some mitzvot, no, he is exempt from the ransom. And conversely: If the Torah had taught us that men and women are equated only in this case of the ransom, one might say that because there is the loss of life the Merciful One has pity on her and therefore the owner of the animal is always obligated to pay the ransom. But with regard to those two other categories, I might say no, a woman is not equated to a man. Therefore it was necessary to mention them all.

讞讜抓 诪讘诇 转拽讬祝 讜讘诇 转砖讞讬转 讻讜壮 讘砖诇诪讗 讘诇 转讟诪讗 诇诪转讬诐 讚讻转讬讘 讗诪专 讗诇 讛讻讛谞讬诐 讘谞讬 讗讛专谉 讘谞讬 讗讛专谉 讜诇讗 讘谞讜转 讗讛专谉 讗诇讗 讘诇 转拽讬祝 讜讘诇 转砖讞讬转 诪谞诇谉

搂 The mishna teaches that women are obligated in all prohibitions except for the prohibitions of: Do not round the corners of one鈥檚 head, and: Do not destroy the corners of your beard, and: Do not contract ritual impurity from a corpse. The Gemara asks: Granted, a woman of priestly lineage is not obligated in the mitzva of: Do not contract ritual impurity from a corpse, as it is written: 鈥淪peak to the priests, the sons of Aaron, and say to them: None shall become impure for the dead among his people鈥 (Leviticus 21:1). This verse teaches that the prohibition applies to the sons of Aaron, but not the daughters of Aaron. But from where do we derive the prohibitions of: Do not round the corners of one鈥檚 head, and: Do not destroy the corners of your beard?

讚讻转讬讘 诇讗 转拽驻讜 驻讗转 专讗砖讻诐 讜诇讗 转砖讞讬转 讗转 驻讗转 讝拽谞讱 讻诇 砖讬砖谞讜 讘讛砖讞转讛 讬砖谞讜 讘讛拽驻讛 讜讛谞讬 谞砖讬 讛讜讗讬诇 讜诇讗 讗讬转谞讛讜 讘讛砖讞转讛 诇讬转谞讛讜 讘讛拽驻讛

The Gemara answers that this is as it is written: 鈥淵ou shall not round the corners of your head and you shall not destroy the corners of your beard鈥 (Leviticus 19:27). The juxtaposition of the two prohibitions teaches that anyone who is included in the prohibition against destroying the beard is included in the prohibition against rounding the head. And since these women are not included in the prohibition against destroying, they are also not included in the prohibition against rounding the head.

讜诪谞诇谉 讚诇讗 讗讬转谞讛讜 讘讛砖讞转讛 讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 住讘专讗 讚讛讗 诇讗 讗讬转 诇讛讜 讝拽谉 讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 拽专讗 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 诇讗 转拽驻讜 驻讗转 专讗砖讻诐 讜诇讗 转砖讞讬转 讗转 驻讗转 讝拽谞讱

The Gemara asks: And from where do we derive that women are not obligated in the prohibition against destroying the corners of one鈥檚 beard? The Gemara answers: If you wish, propose a logical reason, as ordinarily women do not have a beard. And if you wish, cite a verse that teaches this point, as the verse states: 鈥淵ou shall not round the corners of your head [roshekhem] and you shall not destroy the corners of your beard [zekanekha]鈥 (Leviticus 19:27).

诪讚砖谞讬 拽专讗 讘讚讬讘讜专讬讛 讚讗诐 讻谉 谞讬讻转讜讘 专讞诪谞讗 驻讗转 讝拽谞讻诐 诪讗讬 讝拽谞讱 讝拽谞讱 讜诇讗 讝拽谉 讗砖转讱

The Gemara explains: From the fact that the verse changed its language, as the term 鈥測our head [roshekhem]鈥 is in the plural while 鈥測our beard [zekanekha]鈥 is in the singular, it can be inferred that if so, if the prohibition against destroying one鈥檚 beard applied to everyone, let the Merciful One write: And you shall not destroy the corners of your beards [zekanekhem], in the plural, so that the end of the verse parallels the beginning. What is indicated by the fact that the verse states: 鈥淎nd you shall not destroy the corners of your beard [zekanekha],鈥 in the singular? This serves to teach: Your beard is included, but not your wife鈥檚 beard.

讜诇讗 讜讛转谞讬讗 讝拽谉 讗砖讛 讜讛住专讬住 砖讛注诇讜 砖注专 讛专讬 讛谉 讻讝拽谉 诇讻诇 讚讘专讬讛诐 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 诇讛砖讞转讛

The Gemara asks: And is a woman not included in this prohibition? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Nega鈥檌m 4:8): The beard of a woman and that of a eunuch, if they grow facial hair, are considered like a beard for all matters. What, is it not the case that this statement is referring to the prohibition against destroying?

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诇讛砖讞转讛 诇讗 诪爪讬转 讗诪专转 讚讬诇讬祝 驻讗转 驻讗转 诪讘谞讬 讗讛专谉 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 谞砖讬诐 驻讟讜专讜转 讗祝 讻讗谉 谞砖讬诐 驻讟讜专讜转

Abaye said: You cannot say that the baraita is referring to destroying, as it is derived that a woman is exempt through the verbal analogy of 鈥渢he corners of your beard鈥 (Leviticus 19:27) here and 鈥渢he corners of their beard鈥 (Leviticus 21:5) from the sons of Aaron: Just as there, in the case of priests, women are certainly exempt from the mitzva, as the verse is referring to the male descendants of Aaron who perform the Temple service and not to women, so too here, with regard to the prohibition against destroying one鈥檚 beard, which is stated to all Jews, women are exempt. At this stage the Gemara assumes that the exclusion of women denoted by the verse: 鈥淪peak to the priests, the sons of Aaron鈥 (Leviticus 21:1), which excludes women, is applied to all the mitzvot stated in that chapter, including destroying the corners of one鈥檚 beard.

讜讗讬 住讘讬专讗 诇谉 讚讻讬 讻转讘 讘谞讬 讗讛专谉 讗讻讜诇讬讛 注谞讬谞讗 讻转讬讘 谞讬砖转讜拽 拽专讗 诪讬谞讬讛 讜转讬转讬 讘拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讜讗谞讗 讗诪讬谞讗 讜诪讛 讻讛谞讬诐 砖专讬讘讛 讘讛诐 讛讻转讜讘 诪爪讜转 讬转讬专讜转 讘谞讬 讗讛专谉 讜诇讗 讘谞讜转 讗讛专谉 讬砖专讗诇 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉

The Gemara asks: But if we maintain that when the Merciful One writes: 鈥淭he sons of Aaron鈥 (Leviticus 21:1), it is written with regard to the entire manner of that chapter, including the prohibition against destroying one鈥檚 beard, let the verse, i.e., the Torah, be silent and not state about this prohibition concerning all Jews. And this halakha could be derived through an a fortiori inference, as I could say the following: And if with regard to priests, for whom the verse includes additional mitzvot, this prohibition applies only to the sons of Aaron and not the daughters of Aaron, is it not all the more so the case with regard to Israelites, who have fewer mitzvot, that only men should be obligated and not women?

讗讬 诇讗讜 讙讝讬专讛 砖讜讛 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讛驻住讬拽 讛注谞讬谉

The Gemara answers: Nevertheless, the verbal analogy is necessary. Were it not for the verbal analogy, I would say that the halakhot of ritual impurity concluded discussion of that matter. In other words, the exclusion of women denoted by the phrase 鈥渢he sons of Aaron鈥 applies only to the halakhot of impurity, which appear immediately after that phrase. Conversely, the other halakhot mentioned in this chapter, including the prohibition against destroying the beard, apply to women as well.

讛砖转讗 谞诪讬 谞讬诪讗 讛驻住讬拽 讛注谞讬谉 讜讗讬 诪砖讜诐 讙讝讬专讛 砖讜讛 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讻讚转谞讬讗 诇讗 讬讙诇讞讜 讬讻讜诇 讙讬诇讞讜 讘诪住驻专讬讬诐 讬讛讬讛 讞讬讬讘 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇讗 转砖讞讬转

The Gemara asks: If so, now too, let us say that the halakhot of ritual impurity concluded discussion of that matter, and the daughters of Aaron are also prohibited to destroy their beards. And if you maintain that the reason the prohibition stated with regard to priests does not apply to women is due to the verbal analogy employing the term 鈥渢he corners of,鈥 which serves to connect the halakha stated with regard to priests with the halakha stated with regard to all Jews, that verbal analogy is necessary for that which is taught in a baraita: The verse states with regard to priests: 鈥淣either shall they shave off the corners of their beard鈥 (Leviticus 21:5). One might have thought that a priest would be liable even if he shaved his beard with scissors. Therefore the verse states, in a command issued to all Jews: 鈥淎nd you shall not destroy the corners of your beard鈥 (Leviticus 19:27). This teaches that one is liable only for destroying the beard to the root, which is not achieved with scissors.

讬讻讜诇 诇拽讟讜 讘诪诇拽讟 讜讘专讛讬讟谞讬 讬讛讗 讞讬讬讘 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇讗 讬讙诇讞讜 讛讗 讻讬爪讚 讙讬诇讜讞 砖讬砖 讘讛 讛砖讞转讛 讛讜讬 讗讜诪专 讝讛 转注专

The baraita continues: One might have thought that if he extracted his hairs with tweezers, which uproot hairs, or small planes [uvirhitni], he should likewise be liable for destroying his hair. The verse therefore states: 鈥淣either shall they shave off the corners of their beard,鈥 to teach that shaving alone is prohibited and these actions are not considered shaving. How can both these requirements for the prohibition be met? The verse is referring to a type of shaving that involves destruction. You must say this is shaving with a razor. According to this baraita, the verbal analogy is necessary to define the action included in the prohibition against destroying, not to teach who is included in the prohibition.

讗诐 讻谉 谞讬讻转讜讘 拽专讗 讗转 砖讘讝拽谞讱 诪讗讬 驻讗转 讝拽谞讱 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 转专转讬

The Gemara explains: If it is so that the verbal analogy teaches only which action is included in the prohibition against destroying, let the verse write: That which is of your beard. What is added by the expression 鈥渢he corners of your beard鈥? Conclude two conclusions from it, both the definition of the prohibition against shaving and the exemption of women.

讜讗诇讗 讛讗 讚转谞讬讗 讝拽谉 讛讗砖讛 讜讛住专讬住 砖讛注诇讜 砖注专 讛专讬 讛谉 讻讝拽谉 诇讻诇 讚讘专讬讛诐 诇诪讗讬 讛诇讻转讗 讗诪专 诪专 讝讜讟专讗 诇讟讜诪讗转 谞讙注讬诐

The Gemara returns to its question. But that which is taught in the baraita: The beard of a woman and that of a eunuch, if they grew facial hair, are considered like a beard for all matters, with regard to what halakha is this stated? Mar Zutra says: It is stated with regard to ritual impurity from leprosy. A leprous sore in the beard of a woman or a eunuch is treated like an affliction of the beard, not like an affliction on the skin. Different halakhot apply to leprous sores that develop on various parts of the body.

讟讜诪讗转 谞讙注讬诐 讘讛讚讬讗 讻转讬讘讗 讜讗讬砖 讗讜 讗砖讛 讻讬 讬讛讬讛 讘讜 谞讙注 讘专讗砖 讗讜 讘讝拽谉 讗诇讗 讗诪专 诪专 讝讜讟专讗 诇讟讛专转 谞讙注讬诐

The Gemara objects: Concerning ritual impurity from leprosy, it is written explicitly: 鈥淎nd when a man or woman has a plague upon the head or upon the beard鈥 (Leviticus 13:29). This indicates that there is no difference between a man and woman with regard to the beard in the case of leprosy. The baraita would not state a halakha that is explicit in the verse. Rather, Mar Zutra says: This baraita is referring to ritual purification from leprosy, i.e., women can also be purified from leprosy of the beard.

讟讛专转 谞讙注讬诐 谞诪讬 驻砖讬讟讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讘转 讟讜诪讗讛 讛讬讗 讘转 讟讛专讛 讛讬讗 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 诇爪讚讚讬诐 讻转讬讘 讗讬砖 讗讜 讗砖讛 讻讬 讬讛讬讛 讘讜 谞讙注 讘专讗砖 讗讜 讘讝拽谉 讛讚专 讗转讗谉 诇讗讬砖 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara asks: With regard to ritual purification from leprosy it is also obvious: Since impurity applies to a woman, purity likewise applies to her. The Gemara answers: It was necessary to state this with regard to the impurity of afflictions of the beard, as it might enter your mind to say that this verse is written disjunctively, i.e., that the phrase: 鈥淎nd when a man or woman has a plague upon the head,鈥 applies to both a man or a woman; whereas when it states: 鈥淥r upon the beard,鈥 we have come back to the case of a man alone. Therefore the baraita teaches us that this phrase is not referring solely to a man, as there is no difference between a man and a woman with regard to leprosy.

讗讬住讬 转谞讬 讗祝 讘诇 讬拽专讞讜 谞砖讬诐 驻讟讜专讜转 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚讗讬住讬 讚讚专讬砖 讛讻讬 讘谞讬诐 讗转诐 诇讛壮 讗诇讛讬讻诐 诇讗 转转讙讚讚讜 讜诇讗 转砖讬诪讜 拽专讞讛 讘讬谉 注讬谞讬讻诐 诇诪转 讻讬 注诐 拽讚讜砖 讗转讛 诇讛壮 讗诇讛讬讱 讘谞讬诐 讜诇讗 讘谞讜转 诇拽专讞讛

Isi taught in a baraita: Women are also exempt from the prohibition: Do not make baldness upon your heads, a prohibition against tearing out one鈥檚 hair in grief over someone鈥檚 death. The Gemara asks: What is the reason of Isi? The Gemara explains that he teaches as follows: The verse states: 鈥淵ou are the sons of the Lord your God; you shall not cut yourselves, nor make any baldness between your eyes for the dead. For you are a holy people to the Lord your God鈥 (Deuteronomy 14:1鈥2). This verse, which applies to sons and not daughters, is referring to causing baldness, and therefore this prohibition includes only men.

讗转讛 讗讜诪专 诇拽专讞讛 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 诇讙讚讬讚讛 讻砖讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讻讬 注诐 拽讚讜砖 讗转讛 诇讛壮 讗诇讛讬讱 讛专讬 讙讚讬讚讛 讗诪讜专 讛讗 诪讛 讗谞讬 诪拽讬讬诐 讘谞讬诐 讜诇讗 讘谞讜转 诇拽专讞讛

The Gemara asks: Do you say that this is referring to causing baldness, or is it perhaps referring only to the prohibition against cutting, which appears first? The Gemara answers that when it states: 鈥淔or you are a holy people to the Lord your God,鈥 it is stated with regard to the prohibition against cutting, and this verse applies to both men and women, as they are all members of God鈥檚 people. How then do I realize and explain the emphasis on sons and not daughters? This is referring to the prohibition against causing baldness.

讜诪讛 专讗讬转 诇专讘讜转 讗转 讛讙讚讬讚讛 讜诇讛讜爪讬讗 讗转 讛拽专讞讛 诪专讘讛 讗谞讬 讗转 讛讙讚讬讚讛 砖讬砖谞讛 讘诪拽讜诐 讛砖注专 讜砖诇讗 讘诪拽讜诐 砖注专 讜诪讜爪讬讗 讗谞讬 讗转 讛拽专讞讛 砖讗讬谞讛 讗诇讗 讘诪拽讜诐 砖注专

The Gemara asks: And what did you see to include cutting and to exclude causing baldness? Perhaps the opposite is true, and causing baldness applies to men and women whereas cutting applies only to men. The Gemara answers: I include cutting, whose prohibition is broader, as it is applicable both in a place of hair and not in a place of hair; and I exclude causing baldness, which is more limited, as it applies only in a place of hair.

讜讗讬诪讗 讘谞讬诐 讜诇讗 讘谞讜转 讘讬谉 诇拽专讞讛 讘讬谉 诇讙讚讬讚讛 讜讻讬 讻转讘 讻讬 注诐 拽讚讜砖 讗转讛 诇讛壮 讗诇讛讬讱 讘砖专讬讟讛 讛讜讗 讚讻转讬讘 拽住讘专 讗讬住讬 砖专讬讟讛 讜讙讚讬讚讛

The Gemara asks: But one can say that the limitation of sons and not daughters applies both to causing baldness and to cutting, and when the verse writes: 鈥淔or you are a holy people to the Lord your God,鈥 that is written with regard to scoring oneself. The prohibition against scoring oneself is derived from a verbal analogy from a verse stated with regard to priests (see Leviticus 21:5), which applies to both men and women. The Gemara answers: Isi maintains that scoring oneself and cutting

Scroll To Top