Kiddushin

it applies only to man, who is subject to precepts, but not to woman, who is not subject to them.1 And if the last [alone] were intimated, — since there is loss of life, the All-Merciful had compassion upon her;2 but in the first two I might say that it is not so.3 Thus they are [all] necessary. EXCEPTING, YE SHALL NOT ROUND [THE CORNER OF YOUR HEADS] NEITHER SHALT THOU MAR, etc. As for defiling oneself to the dead, that is well, because it is written: Speak unto the priests the sons of Aaron: [There shall none defile himself for the dead among his people]:4 [hence], the sons of Aaron, but not the daughters of Aaron. But how do we know [that she is exempt from] the injunction against rounding [etc.] and marring [etc.]? — Because It is written, ye shall not round the corner of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard:5 whoever is included in [the prohibition of] marring is included in [that of] rounding; but women, since they are not subject to [the prohibition of] marring, are not subject to [that of] rounding. And how do we know that they are not subject to [the injunction against] marring? — Either by common sense, for they have no beard. Or, alternatively, [from] Scripture. For Scripture saith, ye shall not round the corner of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corner of thy beard; since Scripture varies its speech,6 for otherwise the Divine Law should write, ‘the corner of your beards’; why, ‘thy beard’? [To intimate], ‘thy beard,’ but not thy wife's beard. Is it then not?7 But it was taught: The beard of a woman and that of a saris8 who grew hair, are like a [man's] beard in all matters. Surely that means in respect to marring? — Said Abaye: You cannot say that it is in respect to marring, for we learn ‘corner’ ‘corner’ from the sons of Aaron:9 just as there, women are exempt; so here too, women are exempt. But if we hold that ‘the sons of Aaron’ is written with reference to the whole section,10 let the Writ refrain11 from it,12 and it13 follows a fortiori. For I can argue, If [of] priests, upon whom Scripture imposes additional precepts, [we say] ‘the sons of Aaron’ but not the daughters of Aaron, how much more so of Israelites! — But for the gezerah shawah I would reason that the connection is broken.14 Then now too let us say that the connection is broken; and as for the gezerah shawah,15 — that is required for what was taught: ‘They shall not shave’: I might think that if he shaves it with scissors,16 he is liable [for violating the injunction]: therefore it is stated, thou shalt not mar.17 I might think that if he plucks it [his hair] out with pincers or a remover, he is liable:18 therefore it is stated: ‘they shall not shave’.19 How then is it meant? Shaving which involves marring, viz., with a razor.20 If so,21 let Scripture write, [‘ye shall not round the corner of your heads, neither shalt thou mar] that of thy beard’? why [repeat] ‘the corner of thy beard’? Hence both are inferred. 22 Then when it was taught: ‘The beard of a woman and that of a saris who grew hair, are like a [man's] beard in all respects’: to what law [does it refer]? — Said Mar Zutra: To the uncleanliness of leprosy.23 ‘The uncleanliness of leprosy!’ But that is explicitly stated: If a man or a woman have a plague upon the head or the beard?24 — But, said Mar Zutra, [it is] in respect of purification from leprosy.25 But purification from leprosy too is obvious; since she is liable to uncleanliness [through her beard], she needs [the same] purification! — It is necessary:26 I might have assumed, it is written with separate subjects:27 [thus:] ‘If a man or a woman have a plague upon the head’; while ‘or the beard’ reverts to the man [alone]; therefore we are informed [otherwise]. Issi taught: Women are exempt from the injunction against baldness too.28 What is Issi's reason? — Because he interprets thus: Ye are sons of the Lord your God: ye shall not cut yourselves, nor make any baldness between your eyes for the dead. For thou art an holy people unto the Lord thy God:29 [the implied limitation] ‘sons’ but not daughters [is] in respect of baldness. You say, in respect of baldness; yet perhaps it is not so, but rather in respect of cutting? When it is said: ‘For thou art an holy people unto the Lord thy God,’ cutting is referred to;30 hence, how can I interpret [the implication] ‘sons’ but not daughters? In respect to baldness. And why do you prefer31 to include cutting and exclude baldness? I include cutting which is possible both where there is hair and where there is no hair, and I exclude baldness which is possible only in the place of hair.32 Yet perhaps ‘sons’ but not daughters applies to both baldness and cutting, while ‘For thou art an holy people unto the Lord thy God’ relates to incision!33 — Issi holds that incision [seritah] and cutting [gedidah] neither shall they shave off the corner of their beard (Lev. XXI, 5), it being assumed that the phrase ‘sons of Aaron’ of v. I applies to the whole section. The employment of ‘corner’ in both cases teaches similarity of law. reference to Israelites. ‘Mar’ can only refer to the action of a razor, which removes the hair completely. shaving. to ‘and they shall not shave the corner of their beards’ in v. 5, the connection being broken. teaches that if a woman or a saris grows a beard, though normally their chins are free from hair, the test of leprosy are the symptoms of the latter, not of the former, must be shaved off (v. 33) — S. Strashun. women too. thereto. now assumed that making incisions (seritah) is not identical with cutting (gedidah), one being by hand and the other with a knife.