Makkot

he incurs a flogging on one1 count; and if he be a layman [non-priest], he is flogged on two2 counts, whereas, had he eaten it straightway [without specifying the several dues] he [the layman] would have been liable only on one3 count. [Now] the reason [that a layman is said to be liable on two counts] is because he ate in Jerusalem; but supposing he had done it in the ‘country-adjoining’, he would have incurred a flogging on three4 counts, [that is to say] he would be liable even though the fig [with its comprised quota of second tithe] had not come within sight of the [interior] wall [of Jerusalem]!5 — [No; we assume] that he had brought it in [to Jerusalem] and taken it out again. If so, [I ask] what is the object of R. Jose's statement?6 — [I would suggest] that the case he has in mind is where one had taken his fruits in tebel-condition to Jerusalem, R. Jose being of opinion that gifts not yet segregated are regarded as virtually segregated.7 But does R. Jose hold gifts not yet segregated are regarded as virtually segregated? Why, it is taught: R. Simeon b. Judah says in the name of R. Jose that Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel were not in disagreement about fruits that were not yet completely ready [for tithing],8 if they were taken in transit through Jerusalem, that the [comprised quota of] second tithe in them may be redeemed and the fruits may then be eaten anywhere.9 Where they did differ was about fruits that were completely ready [for tithing] and were taken in transit through Jerusalem, Beth Shammai saying that the [comprised quota of] second tithe in them should be ‘brought back to Jerusalem10 and be eaten there, while Beth Hillel say that the comprised quota should be redeemed and may be eaten anywhere.11 Now, if you suppose that [R. Jose considers comprised] gifts12 not yet segregated are as virtually segregated [how could such redeemed dues be eaten anywhere] seeing that they have been received within the [city] walls? — Said Raba:13 [The power of the city] walls [to place an embargo] on the eating [of second tithe within] is recognised by the Scriptures, whereas [its power] of ‘seizing’14 is only Rabbinical;15 and the Rabbis declared an embargo only to second tithe overt;16 but if it is [still merged] in tebel, they made no embargo. Rabina suggested that [the first objection raised]17 might be [met by supposing the reference to be to] a man carrying his bundle of second tithe on a stick [behind him].18 And this [by the way] might offer a solution to the problem raised by R. Papa.19 MISHNAH. IF A MAN MAKES A BALDNESS ON HIS HEAD, OR ROUNDS THE CORNER OF HIS HEAD, OR MARS THE CORNER OF HIS BEARD, OR MAKES ONE CUTTING [IN HIS FLESH] FOR THE DEAD, HE IS LIABLE [TO A FLOGGING]. IF HE MAKES ONE CUTTING FOR FIVE DEAD, OR FIVE CUTTINGS FOR ONE, HE IS LIABLE [SEVERALLY] FOR EACH ONE. ON [ROUNDING] THE HEAD [HE IS LIABLE] FOR TWO CORNERS,20 ONE FOR ONE SIDE AND ONE FOR THE OTHER; ON [MARRING] THE BEARD [HE IS LIABLE] FOR TWO [CORNERS] ON ONE SIDE, FOR TWO ON THE OTHER SIDE, AND FOR ONE LOWER DOWN;21 R. ELIEZER22 SAYS: IF THEY WERE ALL TAKEN OFF AS ONE23 HE IS LIABLE ONLY ON ONE COUNT. AND HE IS ONLY LIABLE ON TAKING OFF WITH A RAZOR; R. ELIEZER22 SAYS: EVEN IF HE PICKS OFF THE HAIRS WITH TWEEZERS,24 OR [REMOVES THEM] WITH PINCERS,25 HE IS LIABLE. GEMARA. Our Rabbis taught: ‘[It is written]. They [the priests] shall not make bald . . . [on their head].26 One might presume that if he made four or five bald patches he would be liable only on one count; we are therefore told, a baldness27 — to teach that he is liable on each and every bald patch. What is the [special] import of ‘on their head’ [in this passage]?28 As it is written [elsewhere], Ye shall not cut yourselves nor make a baldness between your eyes for the dead,29 one might presume that [it means] he should only be liable for making a baldness between the eyes alone; how is it shown that the prohibition extends to [anywhere on] the entire head?30 By the expression, ‘on their head,’ [that is, the prohibition] extends to [anywhere] on] the entire head. I have here an injunction only for priests, for whom Holy Writ has laid down many [other] additional precepts; whence is it shown that these are injunctions for Israel [at large]? Because it is said here [to priests] — [they shall not make] a baldness [on their head]31 — and it is said there [to all Israel] — [nor make] a baldness [between your eyes for the dead,]32 and [we say]: Just as [in the case of the priests] the offender is liable for each bald patch and on [any part of] the head as for [a baldness made] between the eyes, so likewise here [in the case of all Israel] the offender is liable for each bald patch and on [any part of] the head as for [a baldness made] between the eyes; just as there it is forbidden [only] in mourning for the dead,33 so likewise here it is forbidden [only] in mourning for the dead.’34 How, for instance, were those four or five baldnesses made?35 If I say one after another, he having duly been admonished [four or] five times, it is obvious [that he is liable for each]. terumah and there is no offence as regards eating the comprised quota of second tithe, because he is eating it now in Jerusalem, as stated in the data, nor as regards eating the first tithe which is permissible even to laymen. as the second tithe comes within sight of the interior of the wall of Jerusalem. been brought within sight of the interior of the wall. interior with him, and thereby he incurs a flogging, if he eats the fruit outside. running parallel with the jaw to the sides of the mouth; and one on and under the chin (R. Han.). (ii) Two upper junctions of the jaw to the skull, in the region of the eyes; two corners of lower-jaw below the lobes of the ear; and one on the chin. (iii) Two corners of the lower jaw-bone under the ear; two ends of the jaw-bone nearing the chin; and the chin. (Rashi — RIBN, on the text.) V. R. Shimshon (of Sens) and Raabad (of Posquieres, Beaucaire) on Sifra, Lev. XIX, 27; Asheri Mak. III, 2, and R. Jacob's Summaries (there) No. 5 and Tur, Y.D. 181.