Makos Daf 21 - Tattoos, Shaving
Summary
- This shiur presents the sugya on liability for self-cutting over a deceased, the definitions and instruments of prohibited cutting on the head and beard, and the parameters that generate liability, then addresses the Mishnah on tattooing requiring both cutting and inking and evaluates partial acts, medical coloring on wounds, and cosmetic tattooing, followed by the mnemonic system distinguishing teachings of Rav Malkiya and Rav Malkiyo. It then outlines the Mishnah on repeated liabilities for a Nazir and for wearing sha’atnez, the paradigmatic case of plowing one furrow that incurs eight lavin, and the analysis of what act constitutes liability for kilayim in a vineyard, including whether covering or merely sustaining it suffices. It concludes with the mechanics of multiple liabilities for wearing *kilayim* via repeated donning or shehiyah, and the debate whether liability for sustaining *kilayim* requires a ma’aseh or applies even without one based on Rabbi Akiva’s derashah.
- The baraita limits liability for self-cutting to cutting over a death, excluding losses like a fallen house or sunken ship based on “לנפש,” and derives liability for five cuts on one deceased from “ושריטה,” while Rabbi Yosi derives liability for one cut over five deceased from “לנפש.” Rabbi Yosi assumes *serita* and *gedida* are אחת, yielding two distinct derashot from “לנפש” and “למת,” one limiting the prohibition to loss of life and one generating liability for each nefesh. Shmuel rules that one who is *mesaret* with a utensil is liable and aligns with Rabbi Yosi that *serita* and *gedida* are the same, thus including both ביד and בכלי.
- A teaching before Rabbi Yochanan states that one who cuts over a deceased is liable whether ביד or בכלי, but for *avodah zarah* cutting is liable בכלי and not ביד. The Gemara supports this by the verse ויתגדדו כמשפטם בחרבות וברמחים, establishing that the derech avodah is with a utensil.
- Rav Sheshet indicates with his head and beard the locations of *pe’at harosh* and the five points of the face for *pe’at hazakan*. Rabbi Elazar rules that taking all at once incurs only one liability and that liability applies only with a razor. A baraita derives from “לא יגלחו” and “לא תשחית” that the prohibited act is giluch that entails hashchatah, identifying a razor as the instrument that is both giluch and hashchatah.
- The parameters hinge on whether liability follows the result (complete hashchatah) or the process (direct blade vs. friction of two edges like *misparayim*), and whether the screen functions as the second edge. Rav Moshe Feinstein is lenient on electric shavers based on the blades not being independently sharp and the cutting occurring via high-speed action against the screen, while many Eretz Yisrael poskim are stringent.
- Rabbi Elazar rules that even taking with *melaket* or *rehitni* is liable, holding that these are also considered giluch despite the gezeirah shavah that indicates *ta’ar*. The Gemara presents that he learns the gezeirah shavah yet considers *melaket* and *rehitni* to perform giluch.
- The Mishnah states that for *ketovet ka'aka* one is liable only when writing and cutting are combined with ink, blue, or any marking substance that endures. Rabbi Shimon teaches in the name of Rabbi Shimon that liability applies only when writing a divine name, and Bar Kappara clarifies this as writing a name of *avodah zarah*, deriving “אני ה’ ולא אחר.”
- Tosafot (Gittin) rules that writing with ink on skin without cutting is prohibited *derabbanan* since it appears like *ketovet ka'aka*, and the Be’er Shmuel applies this to the question of witnesses signing a get tattooed on an eved. Mishnat Chachamim as cited by Minchat Chinuch reads Rambam as implying that writing without cutting or cutting without writing is not even *derabbanan*, while Minchat Chinuch contends that cutting without writing is *derabbanan* but writing without cutting is permitted, and Nishmat Avraham cites Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach permitting writing on skin with a pen since it is אינו מתקיים כלל. Shraga HaMeir is lenient for cosmetic tattooing using two factors: lack of צורת האותיות per Teshuvat Me’il Tzedaka and non-permanence, while Nimukei Yosef indicates that enduring for זמן גדול suffices for prohibition; Rav Elyashiv permits medical tattooing for reconstructive needs due to its likely *derabbanan* nature without אותיות together with considerations of choleh and kevod habriyot, and Rav Schachter relies on Rav Elyashiv’s ruling.
- Minchat Chinuch suggests that erasing a tattoo on Shabbat is liable per Rambam as תיקון because a Jew’s having a tattoo is prohibited as *chukot ha’akum*, implying an inyan to remove tattoos. Rav Eliezer Silver states that Holocaust survivors should keep their tattoos as a fulfillment of zechirat Amalek, and Teshuvot MiMa’amakim presents keeping such tattoos as testimony to *al kedushat shimcha* and a reminder of Divine remembrance of Israel’s mesirut nefesh.
- Rav Nachman bar Rav Yitzchak provides the mnemonic “שפוד, שפחות, וגומות—רב מלכיו; בלורית, אפר מקלה, וגבינה—רב מלכיא,” assigning each triad to either Rav Malkiyo or Rav Malkiya. Rav Pappa revises that matters from Mishnah or baraita are by Rav Malkiya and amoraic teachings are by Rav Malkiyo, with the siman “מתניתא מלכתא.” The nafka mina is the case of שפחות in Ketubot, which according to Rav Nachman is Rav Malkiyo, but per Rav Pappa, since it is a Mishnah, it is Rav Malkiya.
- The Mishnah rules that a *nazir* who drinks all day, or is *mitamei lemetim* all day, or shaves all day is liable once, but if warned repeatedly—“אל תשתה,” “אל תטמא,” “אל תגלח”—he is liable for each act. For one who wears *sha’atnez* all day the liability is one, but if told “אל תלבש,” and he removes and puts it back on each time, he is liable for each.
- The Mishnah presents “יש חורש תלם אחד וחייב עליו משום שמונה לאוין,” listing plowing with an ox and donkey, both sanctified, in *kil’ei hakerem*, during *shevi’it*, on *Yom Tov*, as a Kohen and a Nazir in a house of tumah. The Rambam explains that all issurim fall simultaneously and thus are chal despite the rule of אין איסור חל על איסור, and Acharonim answer the order of *shevi’it* and *Yom Tov* by setting the case on Rosh Hashanah so the issurim are concurrent.
- The Rivan understands that any two species constitute *kilayim*, not specifically an ox and donkey, while some Rishonim limit de’oraita liability to a tahor with tamei pairing and view tahor with tahor as *derabbanan*. The Rosh argues that the Mishnah’s inclusive phrasing indicates de’oraita liability even for tahor with tahor.
- Rav Beivi citing Rav Asi rules that one need not fully remove and redon the garment to incur multiple liabilities; inserting and removing an arm or neck suffices, and Rav Acha bar Rav Ika demonstrates this. Rav Ashi adds that even mere shehiyah for the time needed to remove and put on renders liability, and Ritva and Nimukei Yosef ask how malkot applies without a ma’aseh; Tosafot and Nimukei Yosef answer that the initial donning was a ma’aseh that carries through, and Radbaz adds that the ability to remove yet choosing to continue wearing counts like a ma’aseh.
- Rabbi Yannai rules by vote that one who covers *kilayim* with earth (מחפה) is liable to lashes, and Rabbi Yochanan identifies this as implicit in the Mishnah’s plowing case. Reish Lakish rejects the proof and attributes the Mishnah to Rabbi Akiva, who holds that one who is *mekayem kilayim* is liable, deriving from “שדך לא תזרע כלאים” via the words *kilayim sadecha lo*, extending liability beyond planting to maintaining. The Rivan holds that Rabbi Akiva imposes malkot even without a ma’aseh, whereas Rabbeinu Chananel, Ritva, and Tosafot require a ma’aseh of maintenance such as fencing or working the field, and Tosafot explain that even if normally לאו שאין בו מעשה אין לוקין עליו, *mekayem kilayim* may be exceptional by hekesh to זורע, while Maggid Mishneh holds that a lav sometimes violated with a ma’aseh is treated as a lav sheyesh bo ma’aseh even when violated without a ma’aseh.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions