39 Makkot 21a

The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yosei derives that halakha from a different source, as Rabbi Yosei holds that an incision over the dead and a laceration over the dead are one transgression, and it is written there, with regard to laceration: “You shall neither lacerate yourselves, nor place a bald spot between your eyes for the dead” (Deuteronomy 14:1), indicating that one is liable for cutting oneself in mourning only over a dead person. Therefore he can derive from the term “for the soul” that one is liable for each and every soul over whom he cut the incision. On a related note, the Gemara cites that which Shmuel says: One who cuts [mesaret] his flesh with a utensil in mourning over the dead is liable. The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: An incision [serita] and a laceration are one transgression, as they are both performed over the dead; but the difference is that an incision is cut by hand, i.e., with one’s fingernails, while a laceration is cut with a utensil. Apparently, cutting an incision is not accomplished with a utensil. The Gemara answers: Shmuel stated his opinion in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, who holds that an incision and a laceration are synonymous in every sense. The Gemara relates: A tanna taught a baraita before Rabbi Yoḥanan: One who cuts an incision over a dead person, whether he did so by hand or with a utensil, is liable. Concerning one who cuts an incision for idolatry, if he does so by hand, he is liable, but if he does so with a utensil, he is exempt. Rabbi Yoḥanan was puzzled by this baraita: But isn’t the reverse written with regard to the priests of Baal: “And they lacerated themselves in accordance with their custom, with swords and lances” (I Kings 18:28), indicating that customarily laceration is with a utensil? Rabbi Yoḥanan instructed the tanna: Rather, emend the baraita and say: Concerning one who cuts an incision for idolatry, if he does so by hand, he is exempt; but if he does so with a utensil, he is liable. § The mishna teaches: And for rounding the edges of his head, one is liable to receive two sets of lashes, one from here, the hair adjacent to one ear, and one from there, the hair adjacent to the other ear. The Gemara relates that when he taught this mishna, Rav Sheshet would gesture toward his temple, which is the point between the two parts of the head, the front and back. Similarly, with regard to the halakha in the mishna: For marring the edges of his beard there are two edges from here, and two from there, and one from below, Rav Sheshet would gesture toward the point between the parts of the beard. § The mishna teaches that Rabbi Eliezer says: If he removed the hair on all the edges of his beard in one action, he is liable to receive only one set of lashes. The Gemara clarifies: He maintains that the prohibition of marring the edges of the beard is a single prohibition, and therefore, one is not liable for marring each edge. The mishna teaches: And one is liable for marring the edges of his beard only if he removes the hair with a razor. The Sages taught a halakhic midrash: The verse states: “And the edge of their beard they may not shave” (Leviticus 21:5). One might have thought that for any manner of shaving, even if he shaved the beard with scissors, he would be liable; therefore, the verse states: “You may not mar the edge of your beard” (Leviticus 19:27), indicating that one is liable only for shaving that destroys the hair from the root, which is not the case with scissors. If the verse had stated only: “You may not mar,” one might have thought that even if he removed the hair with tweezers or with a plane he would be liable to receive lashes, as they destroy the hair from its roots; therefore, the verse states: “They may not shave,” indicating that only hair removal by means of shaving is prohibited, and that is not accomplished with a tweezers and a plane. How so? Based on these two verses, for what form of hair removal is one liable? One is liable only for shaving that involves marring. You must say that this is shaving with a razor. The mishna teaches that Rabbi Eliezer says: Even if he removed the hair with tweezers or with a plane, he would be liable to receive lashes. The Gemara objects: Whichever way you look at it, it is difficult. If he derives the halakha by means of a verbal analogy that he received from his teachers between the halakhot of shaving written with regard to priests (Leviticus 21:5) and the halakhot of marring written with regard to non-priests (Leviticus 19:27), let Rabbi Eliezer require shaving with a razor in order to render him liable, as did the Rabbis. If he does not derive the halakha by means of a verbal analogy, he should also not exempt one who removes the hair with scissors, as that should be included in the category of shaving. The Gemara answers: Actually, he derives the halakha by means of a verbal analogy, and he holds that these too, the tweezers and the plane, accomplish shaving. His dispute with the Rabbis does not relate to the derivation of the halakha; rather it is a dispute with regard to the definition of shaving. MISHNA: One who imprints a tattoo, by inserting a dye into recesses carved in the skin, is also liable to receive lashes. If one imprinted on the skin with a dye but did not carve the skin, or if one carved the skin but did not imprint the tattoo by adding a dye, he is not liable; he is not liable until he imprints and carves the skin, with ink, or with kohl [keḥol], or with any substance that marks. Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda says in the name of Rabbi Shimon: He is liable only if he writes the name there, as it is stated: “And a tattoo inscription you shall not place upon you, I am the Lord” (Leviticus 19:28). GEMARA: Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: Is Rabbi Shimon saying that one is liable only if he actually inscribes the words “I am the Lord” in his skin? Rav Ashi said to him: No, he is saying as bar Kappara teaches: One is liable only if he inscribes a name of an object of idol worship, as it is stated: “And a tattoo inscription you shall not place upon you, I am the Lord,” which means: Do not place an idolatrous name on your skin, as I am the Lord, and no one else. Rav Malkiyya says that Rav Adda bar Ahava says: It is prohibited for a person to place burnt ashes on his wound to promote healing, because it looks like a tattoo. Since few statements were attributed to Rav Malkiyya, and there was another Sage named Rav Malkiyyu who also cited statements in the name of Rav Adda bar Ahava, the Gemara provides a mnemonic for these halakhot. Rav Naḥman, son of Rav Ika, says: The halakhot of skewer, maidservants, and follicles were stated by Rav Malkiyyu. The halakhot of forelock, burnt ashes, and cheese were stated by Rav Malkiyya. Rav Pappa says: The distinction is a different one. Those statements that relate to a mishna or a baraita were stated by Rav Malkiyya. Independent halakhot were taught by Rav Malkiyyu. And your mnemonic, to remember that distinction, is: The Mishna is queen [malketa], indicating the connection between Rav Malkiyya and the Mishna. The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference between the criteria of Rav Naḥman and Rav Pappa in this regard? The Gemara answers: The practical difference between them is with regard to the halakha of maidservants, which appears in a mishna. According to Rav Pappa, this halakha was stated by Rav Malkiyya, not Rav Malkiyyu. The Gemara addresses the matter of placing burnt ashes on a wound. The Gemara relates: Rav Beivai bar Abaye was fastidious and did not place ashes even on the wound of bloodletting [arivda dekhusilta], as that too appears like a tattoo. Rav Ashi says: Any place where there is a wound, his wound proves about itself that the person’s intent when he covers it with ashes is to promote healing, and it is not a tattoo. MISHNA: 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. If the nazirite was rendering himself impure through exposure to corpses all day, he is liable to receive only one set of lashes. If they said to him: Do not render yourself impure, do not render yourself impure, and he renders himself impure after each forewarning, he is liable for each and every incident. If the nazirite was shaving his hair all day, he is liable to receive only one set of lashes. If they said to him: Do not shave, do not shave, and after each forewarning he shaves, he is liable for each and every time he shaves. If a person was wearing a garment consisting of diverse kinds of wool and linen all day, he is liable to receive only one set of lashes. If they said to him: Do not wear it, do not wear it, and he removes it and dons it after each forewarning, he is liable for each and every time that he dons the garment.