## Kiddushin Daf 35b

###### Kiddushin 35b:1
[Kiddushin 35b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/35b:1)

אִישׁ, דְּבַר מִצְוֹת – אִין, אִשָּׁה – לָא. וְאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן הָא: מִשּׁוּם דְּאִיכָּא אִיבּוּד נְשָׁמָה חָס רַחֲמָנָא עֲלַהּ, אֲבָל הָנָךְ תַּרְתֵּי – אֵימָא לָא, צְרִיכָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If the animal killed **a man, who is commanded in** all **mitzvot, yes,** its owner should have to pay the ransom, but if the animal killed **a woman,** who is obligated in only some mitzvot, **no,** he is exempt from the ransom. **And** conversely: **If** the Torah had **taught us** that men and women are equated only in **this** case of the ransom, one might say that **because there is the loss of life the Merciful One has pity on her** and therefore the owner of the animal is always obligated to pay the ransom. **But** with regard to **those two** other categories, **I** might **say no,** a woman is not equated to a man. Therefore it was **necessary** to mention them all.


###### Kiddushin 35b:2
[Kiddushin 35b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/35b:2)

חוּץ מִ״בַּל תַּקִּיף״ וּ״בַל תַּשְׁחִית״ כּוּ׳. בִּשְׁלָמָא ״בַּל תִּטַּמֵּא לְמֵתִים״, דִּכְתִיב: ״אֱמֹר אֶל הַכֹּהֲנִים בְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן״ – בְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן, וְלֹא בְּנוֹת אַהֲרֹן. אֶלָּא ״בַּל תַּקִּיף״ וּ״בַל תַּשְׁחִית״ מְנָלַן?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches that women are obligated in all prohibitions **except for** the prohibitions of: **Do not round** the corners of one’s head, **and: Do not destroy** the corners of your beard, and: Do not contract ritual impurity from a corpse. The Gemara asks: **Granted,** a woman of priestly lineage is not obligated in the mitzva of: **Do not contract ritual impurity from a corpse, as it is written: “Speak to the priests, the sons of Aaron,** and say to them: None shall become impure for the dead among his people” (Leviticus 21:1). This verse teaches that the prohibition applies to **the sons of Aaron, but not the daughters of Aaron. But from where do we** derive the prohibitions of: **Do not round** the corners of one’s head, **and: Do not destroy** the corners of your beard?


###### Kiddushin 35b:3
[Kiddushin 35b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/35b:3)

דִּכְתִיב: ״לֹא תַקִּפוּ פְּאַת רֹאשְׁכֶם וְלֹא תַשְׁחִית אֵת פְּאַת זְקָנֶךָ״ – כֹּל שֶׁיֶּשְׁנוֹ בְּהַשְׁחָתָה יֶשְׁנוֹ בְּהַקָּפָה. וְהָנֵי נְשֵׁי, הוֹאִיל וְלָא אִיתַנְהוּ בְּהַשְׁחָתָה, לֵיתַנְהוּ בְּהַקָּפָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers that this is **as it is written: “You shall not round the corners of your head and you shall not destroy the corners of your beard”** (Leviticus 19:27). The juxtaposition of the two prohibitions teaches that **anyone who is** included **in** the prohibition against **destroying** the beard **is** included **in** the prohibition against **rounding** the head. **And since these women are not** included **in** the prohibition against **destroying, they are** also **not** included **in** the prohibition against **rounding** the head.


###### Kiddushin 35b:4
[Kiddushin 35b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/35b:4)

וּמְנָלַן דְּלָא אִיתַנְהוּ בְּהַשְׁחָתָה? אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא סְבָרָא: דְּהָא לָא אִית לְהוּ זָקָן. וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא קְרָא: דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״לֹא תַקִּפוּ פְּאַת רֹאשְׁכֶם וְלֹא תַשְׁחִית אֵת פְּאַת זְקָנֶךָ״,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And from where do we** derive **that** women **are not** obligated **in** the prohibition against **destroying** the corners of one’s beard? The Gemara answers: **If you wish, propose** a logical **reason, as** ordinarily women **do not have a beard. And if you wish, cite a verse** that teaches this point, **as the verse states: “You shall not round the corners of your head [*roshekhem*] and you shall not destroy the corners of your beard [*zekanekha*]”** (Leviticus 19:27).


###### Kiddushin 35b:5
[Kiddushin 35b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/35b:5)

מִדְּשַׁנִּי קְרָא בְּדִיבּוּרֵיהּ, דְּאִם כֵּן נִיכְתּוֹב רַחֲמָנָא: ״פְּאַת זְקַנְכֶם״. מַאי ״זְקָנֶךָ״ – זְקָנֶךָ, וְלֹא זְקַן אִשְׁתְּךָ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: **From** the fact **that the verse changed its language,** as the term “your head [*roshekhem*]” is in the plural while “your beard [*zekanekha*]” is in the singular, it can be inferred that **if so,** if the prohibition against destroying one’s beard applied to everyone, **let the Merciful One write:** And you shall not destroy the **corners of your beards [*zekanekhem*],** in the plural, so that the end of the verse parallels the beginning. **What** is indicated by the fact that the verse states: “And you shall not destroy the corners of **your beard [*zekanekha*],”** in the singular? This serves to teach: **Your beard** is included, **but not your wife’s beard.**


###### Kiddushin 35b:6
[Kiddushin 35b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/35b:6)

וְלָא? וְהָתַנְיָא: זְקַן אִשָּׁה, וְהַסָּרִיס שֶׁהֶעֱלוּ שֵׂעָר – הֲרֵי הֵן כְּזָקָן לְכׇל דִּבְרֵיהֶם. מַאי לָאו לְהַשְׁחָתָה?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** is a woman **not** included in this prohibition? **But isn’t it taught** in a *baraita* (*Tosefta*, *Nega’im* 4:8): **The beard of a woman and** that of **a eunuch, if they grow** facial **hair, are considered like a beard for all matters. What, is it not** the case that this statement is referring **to** the prohibition against **destroying?**


###### Kiddushin 35b:7
[Kiddushin 35b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/35b:7)

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: לְהַשְׁחָתָה לָא מָצֵית אָמְרַתְּ, דְּיָלֵיף ״פְּאַת״ ״פְּאַת״ מִבְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן, מָה לְהַלָּן נָשִׁים פְּטוּרוֹת – אַף כָּאן נָשִׁים פְּטוּרוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said: You cannot say** that the *baraita* is referring **to destroying, as it is derived** that a woman is exempt through the verbal analogy of **“the corners** of your beard” (Leviticus 19:27) here and **“the corners** of their beard” (Leviticus 21:5) **from the sons of Aaron: Just as there,** in the case of priests, **women are** certainly **exempt** from the mitzva, as the verse is referring to the male descendants of Aaron who perform the Temple service and not to women, **so too here,** with regard to the prohibition against destroying one’s beard, which is stated to all Jews, **women are exempt.** At this stage the Gemara assumes that the exclusion of women denoted by the verse: “Speak to the priests, the sons of Aaron” (Leviticus 21:1), which excludes women, is applied to all the mitzvot stated in that chapter, including destroying the corners of one’s beard.


###### Kiddushin 35b:8
[Kiddushin 35b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/35b:8)

וְאִי סְבִירָא לַן דְּכִי כְּתִיב ״בְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן״ – אַכּוּלֵּיהּ עִנְיָנָא כְּתִיב, נִישְׁתּוֹק קְרָא מִינֵּיהּ וְתֵיתֵי בְּקַל וָחוֹמֶר, וַאֲנָא אָמֵינָא: וּמָה כֹּהֲנִים שֶׁרִיבָּה בָּהֶם הַכָּתוּב מִצְוֹת יְתֵירוֹת – ״בְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן״ – וְלֹא בְּנוֹת אַהֲרֹן, יִשְׂרָאֵל לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But if we maintain that when** the Merciful One **writes: “The sons of Aaron”** (Leviticus 21:1), it **is written with regard to the entire manner** of that chapter, including the prohibition against destroying one’s beard, **let the verse,** i.e., the Torah, **be silent** and not state **about** this prohibition concerning all Jews. **And** this *halakha* **could be derived through an *a fortiori*** inference, as **I** could **say** the following: **And if** with regard to **priests, for whom the verse includes additional mitzvot,** this prohibition applies only to **the sons of Aaron and not the daughters of Aaron,** is it **not all the more so** the case with regard to **Israelites,** who have fewer mitzvot, that only men should be obligated and not women?


###### Kiddushin 35b:9
[Kiddushin 35b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/35b:9)

אִי לָאו גְּזֵירָה שָׁוָה הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: הִפְסִיק הָעִנְיָן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: Nevertheless, the verbal analogy is necessary. **Were it not for** the **verbal analogy, I would say** that the *halakhot* of ritual impurity **concluded** discussion of **that matter.** In other words, the exclusion of women denoted by the phrase “the sons of Aaron” applies only to the *halakhot* of impurity, which appear immediately after that phrase. Conversely, the other *halakhot* mentioned in this chapter, including the prohibition against destroying the beard, apply to women as well.


###### Kiddushin 35b:10
[Kiddushin 35b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/35b:10)

הַשְׁתָּא נָמֵי נֵימָא הִפְסִיק הָעִנְיָן! וְאִי מִשּׁוּם גְּזֵירָה שָׁוָה, מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְכִדְתַנְיָא: ״לֹא יְגַלֵּחוּ״, יָכוֹל גִּילְּחוֹ בְּמִסְפָּרַיִים יִהְיֶה חַיָּיב? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״לֹא תַשְׁחִית״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: If so, **now too, let us say** that the *halakhot* of ritual impurity **concluded** discussion of **that matter,** and the daughters of Aaron are also prohibited to destroy their beards. **And if** you maintain that the reason the prohibition stated with regard to priests does not apply to women is **due to** the **verbal analogy** employing the term “the corners of,” which serves to connect the *halakha* stated with regard to priests with the *halakha* stated with regard to all Jews, that verbal analogy **is necessary for that which is taught** in a *baraita*: The verse states with regard to priests: **“Neither shall they shave off** the corners of their beard” (Leviticus 21:5). One **might** have thought that a priest **would be liable** even if **he shaved his** beard **with scissors.** Therefore **the verse states,** in a command issued to all Jews: **“And you shall not destroy** the corners of your beard” (Leviticus 19:27). This teaches that one is liable only for destroying the beard to the root, which is not achieved with scissors.


###### Kiddushin 35b:11
[Kiddushin 35b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/35b:11)

יָכוֹל לִקְּטוֹ בְּמַלְקֵט וּבְרָהִיטְנֵי יְהֵא חַיָּיב? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״לֹא יְגַלֵּחוּ״. הָא כֵּיצַד? גִּילּוּחַ שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ הַשְׁחָתָה, הֱוֵי אוֹמֵר זֶה תַּעַר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues: One **might** have thought that **if he extracted** his hairs **with tweezers,** which uproot hairs, **or** small **planes [*uvirhitni*], he should** likewise **be liable** for destroying his hair. **The verse** therefore **states: “Neither shall they shave off** the corners of their beard,” to teach that shaving alone is prohibited and these actions are not considered shaving. **How** can both **these** requirements for the prohibition be met? The verse is referring to a type of **shaving that involves destruction. You must say** this **is** shaving with **a razor.** According to this *baraita*, the verbal analogy is necessary to define the action included in the prohibition against destroying, not to teach who is included in the prohibition.


###### Kiddushin 35b:12
[Kiddushin 35b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/35b:12)

אִם כֵּן, נִיכְתּוֹב קְרָא: ״אֶת שֶׁבִּזְקָנֶךָ״, מַאי ״פְּאַת זְקָנֶךָ״ – שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ תַּרְתֵּי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: **If** it is **so** that the verbal analogy teaches only which action is included in the prohibition against destroying, **let the verse write: That which is of your beard. What** is added by the expression **“the corners of your beard”? Conclude two** conclusions **from it,** both the definition of the prohibition against shaving and the exemption of women.


###### Kiddushin 35b:13
[Kiddushin 35b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/35b:13)

וְאֶלָּא הָא דְּתַנְיָא: זְקַן הָאִשָּׁה וְהַסָּרִיס שֶׁהֶעֱלוּ שֵׂעָר הֲרֵי הֵן כְּזָקָן לְכׇל דִּבְרֵיהֶם, לְמַאי הִלְכְתָא? אָמַר מָר זוּטְרָא: לְטוּמְאַת נְגָעִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara returns to its question. **But that which is taught** in the *baraita*: **The beard of a woman and** that of **a eunuch, if they grew** facial **hair, are considered like a beard for all matters, with regard to what *halakha*** is this stated? **Mar Zutra says:** It is stated **with regard to ritual impurity from leprosy.** A leprous sore in the beard of a woman or a eunuch is treated like an affliction of the beard, not like an affliction on the skin. Different *halakhot* apply to leprous sores that develop on various parts of the body.


###### Kiddushin 35b:14
[Kiddushin 35b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/35b:14)

טוּמְאַת נְגָעִים בְּהֶדְיָא כְּתִיבָא, ״וְאִישׁ אוֹ אִשָּׁה כִּי יִהְיֶה בוֹ נָגַע בְּרֹאשׁ אוֹ בְזָקָן״! אֶלָּא אָמַר מָר זוּטְרָא: לְטׇהֳרַת נְגָעִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara objects: Concerning **ritual impurity from leprosy, it is written explicitly: “And when a man or woman has a plague upon the head or upon the beard”** (Leviticus 13:29). This indicates that there is no difference between a man and woman with regard to the beard in the case of leprosy. The *baraita* would not state a *halakha* that is explicit in the verse. **Rather, Mar Zutra says:** This *baraita* is referring **to ritual purification from leprosy,** i.e., women can also be purified from leprosy of the beard.


###### Kiddushin 35b:15
[Kiddushin 35b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/35b:15)

טׇהֳרַת נְגָעִים נָמֵי פְּשִׁיטָא, כֵּיוָן דְּבַת טוּמְאָה הִיא – בַּת טׇהֳרָה הִיא! אִיצְטְרִיךְ, סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא לִצְדָדִים כְּתִיב: ״אִישׁ אוֹ אִשָּׁה כִּי יִהְיֶה בוֹ נָגַע בְּרֹאשׁ״, ״אוֹ בְזָקָן״ – הֲדַר אֲתָאן לְאִישׁ, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: With regard to **ritual purification from leprosy it is also obvious: Since impurity applies to** a woman, **purity** likewise **applies to her.** The Gemara answers: It **was necessary** to state this with regard to the impurity of afflictions of the beard, as **it might enter your mind to say** that this verse **is written disjunctively,** i.e., that the phrase: **“And when a man or woman has a plague upon the head,”** applies to both a man or a woman; whereas when it states: **“Or upon the beard,” we have come back to** the case of **a man** alone. Therefore the *baraita* **teaches us** that this phrase is not referring solely to a man, as there is no difference between a man and a woman with regard to leprosy.


###### Kiddushin 35b:16
[Kiddushin 35b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/35b:16)

אִיסִי תָּנֵי: אַף ״בַּל יִקְרְחוּ״ – נָשִׁים פְּטוּרוֹת. מַאי טַעְמָא דְּאִיסִי דְּדָרֵישׁ הָכִי? ״בָּנִים אַתֶּם לַה׳ אֱלֹהֵיכֶם לֹא תִתְגֹּדְדוּ וְלֹא תָשִׂימוּ קׇרְחָה בֵּין עֵינֵיכֶם לָמֵת. כִּי עַם קָדוֹשׁ אַתָּה לַה׳ אֱלֹהֶיךָ״, בָּנִים וְלֹא בָּנוֹת – לְקׇרְחָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Isi taught** in a *baraita*: **Women are also exempt** from the prohibition: **Do not make baldness** upon your heads, a prohibition against tearing out one’s hair in grief over someone’s death. The Gemara asks: **What is the reason of Isi?** The Gemara explains **that he teaches as follows:** The verse states: **“You are the sons of the Lord your God; you shall not cut yourselves, nor make any baldness between your eyes for the dead. For you are a holy people to the Lord your God”** (Deuteronomy 14:1–2). This verse, which applies to **sons and not daughters,** is referring **to** causing **baldness,** and therefore this prohibition includes only men.


###### Kiddushin 35b:17
[Kiddushin 35b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/35b:17)

אַתָּה אוֹמֵר לְקׇרְחָה, אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא לִגְדִידָה? כְּשֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר: ״כִּי עַם קָדוֹשׁ אַתָּה לַה׳ אֱלֹהֶיךָ״ – הֲרֵי גְּדִידָה אָמוּר, הָא מָה אֲנִי מְקַיֵּים בָּנִים וְלֹא בָּנוֹת – לְקׇרְחָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: Do **you say** that this is referring **to** causing **baldness, or is it** perhaps referring **only to** the prohibition against **cutting,** which appears first? The Gemara answers that **when it states: “For you are a holy people to the Lord your God,”** it **is stated** with regard to the prohibition against **cutting,** and this verse applies to both men and women, as they are all members of God’s people. **How** then **do I realize** and explain the emphasis on **sons and not daughters?** This is referring **to** the prohibition against causing **baldness.**


###### Kiddushin 35b:18
[Kiddushin 35b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/35b:18)

וּמָה רָאִיתָ לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הַגְּדִידָה וּלְהוֹצִיא אֶת הַקׇּרְחָה? מְרַבֶּה אֲנִי אֶת הַגְּדִידָה, שֶׁיֶּשְׁנָהּ בִּמְקוֹם הַשֵּׂעָר וְשֶׁלֹּא בִּמְקוֹם שֵׂעָר, וּמוֹצִיא אֲנִי אֶת הַקׇּרְחָה שֶׁאֵינָהּ אֶלָּא בִּמְקוֹם שֵׂעָר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And what did you see to include cutting and to exclude** causing **baldness?** Perhaps the opposite is true, and causing baldness applies to men and women whereas cutting applies only to men. The Gemara answers: **I include cutting,** whose prohibition is broader, **as it is** applicable both **in a place of hair and not in a place of hair; and I exclude** causing **baldness,** which is more limited, **as it** applies **only in a place of hair.**


###### Kiddushin 35b:19
[Kiddushin 35b:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/35b:19)

וְאֵימָא: בָּנִים וְלֹא בָּנוֹת – בֵּין לְקׇרְחָה בֵּין לִגְדִידָה, וְכִי כְּתִב: ״כִּי עַם קָדוֹשׁ אַתָּה לַה׳ אֱלֹהֶיךָ״, בִּשְׂרִיטָה הוּא דִּכְתִיב! קָסָבַר אִיסִי שְׂרִיטָה וּגְדִידָה

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But** one can **say** that the limitation of **sons and not daughters** applies **both to** causing **baldness and to cutting, and when** the verse **writes: “For you are a holy people to the Lord your God,” that is written with regard to scoring** oneself. The prohibition against scoring oneself is derived from a verbal analogy from a verse stated with regard to priests (see Leviticus 21:5), which applies to both men and women. The Gemara answers: **Isi maintains** that **scoring** oneself **and cutting**