אֶלָּא בַּחֲדָא הַתְרָאָה – מִי מִחַיַּיב? וְהָתְנַן: נָזִיר שֶׁהָיָה שׁוֹתֶה יַיִן כָּל הַיּוֹם – אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב אֶלָּא אַחַת. אָמְרוּ לוֹ ״אַל תִּשְׁתֶּה״, ״אַל תִּשְׁתֶּה״, וְהוּא שׁוֹתֶה – חַיָּיב עַל כָּל אַחַת וְאַחַת! לָא צְרִיכָא, דְּסָךְ חָמֵשׁ אֶצְבְּעוֹתָיו נָשָׁא וְאוֹתְבִינְהוּ בְּבַת אַחַת, דְּהָוְיָא לֵיהּ הַתְרָאָה לְכָל חֲדָא וַחֲדָא.

Rather, say that he created five bald spots with one forewarning; is one liable in that case? But didn’t we learn in a mishna (21a): A nazirite who was drinking wine all day is liable to receive only one set of lashes; if onlookers said to him: Do not drink, do not drink, forewarning him several times, and he drinks after each forewarning, he is liable to receive lashes for each and every drink. The Gemara answers: No, this halakha is necessary only with regard to one who, after one forewarning, smeared his five fingers in a depilatory agent [ nasha ] and then placed his fingers simultaneously on his hair, thereby creating five bald spots, as in that case, it is tantamount to a forewarning for each and every bald spot

וְכַמָּה שִׁיעוּר קָרְחָה? רַב הוּנָא אוֹמֵר: כְּדֵי שֶׁיֵּרָאֶה מֵרֹאשׁוֹ. רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אוֹמֵר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: כִּגְרִיס. כְּתַנָּאֵי: כַּמָּה שִׁיעוּר קָרְחָה – כִּגְרִיס, אֲחֵרִים אוֹמְרִים: כְּדֵי שֶׁיֵּרָאֶה מֵרֹאשׁוֹ.

§ The Gemara asks: And how much is the measure of a bald spot for which one is liable? Rav Huna says: It must be of sufficient size so that bald skin will be visible on his head. Rabbi Yoḥanan says in the name of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon: It is the size of a Cilician bean [ kigeris ]. The Gemara comments: This amoraic dispute is parallel to a dispute between tanna’im : And how much is the measure of a bald spot? It is the size of a Cilician bean. Aḥerim say: It must be of sufficient size so that bald skin will be visible on his head.

אֲמַר רַב יְהוּדָה בַּר חֲבִיבָא: פְּלִיגִי בָּהּ תְּלָתָא תַּנָּאֵי, חַד אוֹמֵר: כִּגְרִיס, וְחַד אוֹמֵר: כְּדֵי שֶׁיֵּרָאֶה מֵרֹאשׁוֹ, וְחַד אוֹמֵר: כִּשְׁתֵּי שְׂעָרוֹת. וְאִיכָּא דְּמַפֵּיק שְׁתֵּי שְׂעָרוֹת וּמְעַיֵּיל בְּכַעֲדָשָׁה. וְסִימָנָךְ: בַּהֶרֶת כִּגְרִיס וּמִחְיָה בְּכַעֲדָשָׁה.

Rav Yehuda bar Ḥaviva said that there are three tanna’im who disagree concerning this matter. One says: A spot the size of a Cilician bean; and one says: A spot of sufficient size so that bald skin will be visible on his head; and one says: A spot that is the measure of two hairs. And there is one who removed the opinion that it is the measure of two hairs, and inserted an opinion that it is the size of a lentil. And your mnemonic to remember the different opinions is from a mishna with regard to the halakhot of leprosy ( Nega’im 6:5): The measure of impurity for a snow-white leprous mark [ baheret ] is a Cilician bean, and the measure of impurity for the raw flesh that grows within the baheret is a lentil.

תָּנָא: הַנּוֹטֵל מְלֹא פִּי הַזּוּג בְּשַׁבָּת – חַיָּיב. וְכַמָּה מְלֹא פִּי הַזּוּג? אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: שְׁתַּיִם. וְהָתַנְיָא: לְקָרְחָה שְׁתַּיִם! אֵימָא: וְכֵן לְקָרְחָה שְׁתַּיִם.

In a related halakha , the Sages taught: One who removes a scissorsful [ melo pi hazug ] of hair from his head on Shabbat is liable. And how much is a scissorsful? Rav Yehuda says: Two hairs. The Gemara asks: But isn’t it taught in a baraita : For a bald spot the measure is two hairs, from which it may be inferred that the measure with regard to labor on Shabbat is different than for a bald spot. The Gemara answers: Emend the baraita and say: And likewise with regard to a bald spot the measure is two hairs, indicating that the measure for Shabbat and the measure for a bald spot are the same.

תַּנְיָא נַמִי הָכִי: הַנּוֹטֵל מְלֹא פִּי הַזּוּג בְּשַׁבָּת – חַיָּיב. וְכַמָּה מְלֹא פִּי הַזּוּג – שְׁתַּיִם, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: אַחַת. וּמוֹדִים חֲכָמִים לְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בִּמְלַקֵּט לְבָנוֹת מִתּוֹךְ שְׁחוֹרוֹת, אֲפִילּוּ אַחַת, שֶׁהוּא חַיָּיב. וְדָבָר זֶה אֲפִילּוּ בַּחוֹל אָסוּר, מִשּׁוּם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״לֹא יִלְבַּשׁ גֶּבֶר שִׂמְלַת אִשָּׁה״.

That is also taught in a baraita : One who removes a scissorsful of hair on Shabbat is liable. And how much is a scissorsful? It is two hairs. Rabbi Eliezer says: One hair. And the Rabbis concede to Rabbi Eliezer in the case of one who removes white hairs from black ones, even if he removes one hair, that he is liable. Since his intent was to remove that particular hair, its removal constitutes a complete action. The Gemara adds: And for a man, that matter is prohibited even during the week, due to the fact that it is stated: “Neither shall a man don a woman’s garment” (Deuteronomy 22:5). Removal of white hairs for the purposes of beautification is characteristic of women, and it is prohibited for a man to perform those actions.

״וְהַמַּקִּיף פְּאַת רֹאשׁוֹ״ וכו׳. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״פְּאַת רֹאשׁוֹ״ – סוֹף רֹאשׁוֹ, וְאֵיזֶהוּ סוֹף רֹאשׁוֹ – זֶה הַמַּשְׁוֶה צְדָעָיו לַאֲחוֹרֵי אָזְנוֹ וּלְפַדַּחְתּוֹ.

§ The mishna teaches: And one who rounds the edge of his head is flogged. The Sages taught: The edge of his head is the extremity of his head. And what is the extremity of his head? This is a reference to one who levels the hairline of his temples to the hairline behind his ear and to the hairline of his forehead. There is no hair behind the ears or on the forehead. One who removes the hair from the temples so that they are like those areas violates the prohibition against rounding the edges of his head.

תָּנֵי תַּנָּא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב חִסְדָּא: אֶחָד הַמַּקִּיף וְאֶחָד הַנִּיקָּף, לוֹקֶה. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מַאן דְּאָכֵיל תְּמָרֵי בְּאַרְבֵּילָא לָקֵי?! דְּאָמַר לָךְ: מַנִּי – רַבִּי יְהוּדָה הִיא, דְּאָמַר: לָאו שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ מַעֲשֶׂה לוֹקִין עָלָיו.

The tanna taught a baraita before Rav Ḥisda: Both one who rounds the edges of his head and one for whom the edges of his head are rounded are flogged. Rav Ḥisda said to him: Is one who eats dates that are in a sieve [ arbeila ] flogged? By analogy, if a person rounded the edges of another’s head, why should the person whose head was rounded receive lashes? He performed no action. Rav Ḥisda proceeded to explain to the tanna : In response to one who says to you: Who is the tanna of the baraita ? Say that it is Rabbi Yehuda, who says: In the case of a prohibition that does not involve an action, one is flogged for its violation.

רָבָא אוֹמֵר: בְּמַקִּיף לְעַצְמוֹ, וְדִבְרֵי הַכֹּל. רַב אַשִׁי אוֹמֵר: בִּמְסַיֵּיעַ, וְדִבְרֵי הַכֹּל.

Rava says: This baraita can be explained as referring to one who rounds the edges of his head for himself, and he is liable both for rounding the edges of his head and for having the edges of his head rounded; and everyone agrees that he is flogged because he performed an action. Rav Ashi says: This baraita can be explained as referring to a case where the one for whom the edges of his head are being rounded assists the person rounding his head, by repositioning his head to facilitate that rounding, and everyone agrees that he is flogged.

״וְהַמַּשְׁחִית פְּאַת זְקָנוֹ״. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״פְּאַת זְקָנוֹ״ – סוֹף זְקָנוֹ, וְאֵיזֶהוּ סוֹף זְקָנוֹ – שִׁבּוֹלֶת זְקָנוֹ.

§ The mishna teaches: And one who mars the edge of his beard is flogged. The Sages taught: The edge of his beard is the extremity of his beard. And what is the extremity of his beard? It is the stalk of his beard, i.e., the five edges of the beard enumerated in the mishna where hair collects in one spot, like grain on stalks.

״וְהַמְשָׂרֵט שְׂרִיטָה אַחַת״ וכו׳. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״וְשֶׂרֶט״, יָכוֹל אֲפִילּוּ שָׂרַט עַל בֵּיתוֹ שֶׁנָּפַל וְעַל סְפִינָתוֹ שֶׁטָּבְעָה בַּיָּם? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״לָנֶפֶשׁ״ – אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב אֶלָּא עַל הַמֵּת בִּלְבַד. וּמִנַּיִן לַמְשָׂרֵט חָמֵשׁ שְׂרִיטוֹת עַל מֵת אֶחָד, שֶׁהוּא חַיָּיב עַל כָּל אַחַת וְאַחַת? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״וְשֶׂרֶט״, לְחַיֵּיב עַל כָּל שְׂרִיטָה וּשְׂרִיטָה.

§ The mishna teaches: And one who cuts one incision in a display of mourning over the dead is flogged. The Sages taught a halakhic midrash on the verse: “And an incision for the soul you shall not place in your flesh” (Leviticus 19:28). Had the verse stated only: “And an incision,” one might have thought that this prohibition applies to any incision cut in sorrow, even if he cut an incision in sorrow over his house that collapsed, or over his ship that sunk at sea. Therefore, the verse states: “For the soul,” from which it is derived that he is liable for an incision in mourning only for the dead alone. And from where is it derived that one who cuts five incisions in mourning over one dead person is liable for each and every incision? The verse states: “And an incision” to render him liable for each and every incision.

רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: מִנַּיִן לַמְשָׂרֵט שְׂרִיטָה אַחַת עַל חֲמִשָּׁה מֵתִים, שֶׁהוּא חַיָּיב עַל כָּל אַחַת וְאַחַת? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״לָנֶפֶשׁ״ – לְחַיֵּיב עַל כָּל נֶפֶשׁ וְנֶפֶשׁ.

Rabbi Yosei says: From where is it derived concerning one who cuts one incision in mourning over five dead people, that he is liable for each and every person for whom he cut that incision? The verse states: “For the soul,” to render him liable for each and every dead person.

וְהָא אַפִּיקְתֵּיהּ לְבֵיתוֹ שֶׁנָּפַל וְלִסְפִינָתוֹ שֶׁטָּבְעָה בַּיָּם!

The Gemara asks: But didn’t you already derive from the term “for the soul” an exemption for one who cut an incision in sorrow over his house that collapsed, or over his ship that sunk at sea?