Mishneh Torah — Foreign Worship and Customs of the Nations הלכות עבודה זרה וחוקות הגויים, Chapter 12

אֵין מְגַלְּחִין פַּאֲתֵי הָרֹאשׁ כְּמוֹ שֶׁהָיוּ עוֹשִׂין עוֹבְדֵי כּוֹכָבִים שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא יט כז) "לֹא תַקִּפוּ פְּאַת רֹאשְׁכֶם". וְחַיָּב עַל כָּל פֵּאָה וּפֵאָה. לְפִיכָךְ הַמְגַלֵּחַ שְׁנֵי צְדָעָיו אֲפִלּוּ בְּבַת אַחַת וְהַתְרָאָה אַחַת לוֹקֶה שְׁתַּיִם. אֶחָד הַמְגַלֵּחַ הַפֵּאוֹת בִּלְבַד וּמֵנִיחַ שֵׂעָר כָּל הָרֹאשׁ וְאֶחָד הַמְגַלֵּחַ כָּל הָרֹאשׁ כְּאֶחָד לוֹקֶה הוֹאִיל וְגִלַּח הַפֵּאוֹת. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בְּאִישׁ הַמְגַלֵּחַ אֲבָל אִישׁ הַמִּתְגַּלֵּחַ אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן סִיֵּעַ לַמְגַלֵּחַ. וְהַמְגַלֵּחַ אֶת הַקָּטָן לוֹקֶה:

We may not shave the corners of our heads as the idolaters and their priests do, (Mitzvah 251) explains that this is a particularly severe prohibition, since its violation involves making a sign for idolatry on our own bodies. as [Leviticus 19:27] states: "Do not cut off the corners of your heads."One (Negative Commandment 43) and Sefer HaChinuch (ibid.) consider this prohibition to be one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. is liable for each corner. Therefore, a person who shaves both his temples (ibid.), the Rambam explains that although this prohibition involves two different activities (shaving the right corner and shaving the left corner), it is not considered to be two mitzvot, because the Torah's expression forbidding such shaving includes both sides in the same phrase. Had the Torah mentioned both the right and left sides, it would be considered to be two mitzvot.[This prohibition applies equally to] one who shaves off only the corners of his head and leaves the remainder of his hair - As mentioned in Chapter 11, Halachah 1, this style of cutting hair is referred to as a blorit and was practiced by the gentiles. - even if he were to do so simultaneously and had received only a single warning – is [liable for] two measures of lashes.[This prohibition applies equally to] one who shaves off only the corners of his head and leaves the remainder of his hair, and to one who shaves his entire head at once., ibid.). Since he has shaved the corners, he is [liable for] lashes.To whom does the above apply? To the person who shaves. The person [whose head] is shaven is not lashed disagrees and maintains that since he did not perform the deed of shaving, he is not considered to have violated the prohibition at all. This applies even when he specifically ordered the person who shaved him to do so. The Ra'avad's opinion is, however, supported by the Lechem Mishneh and other authorities. unless he assists the one who is shaving him. One who shaves [the corners of] a child's [head] should be [liable for] lashes. 57b).This point is not, however, accepted by all authorities. The Beit Yosef (Yoreh De'ah, ibid.) mentions other opinions which do not hold a person liable for shaving a child's head.

הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁגִּלְּחָה פְּאַת רֹאשׁ הָאִישׁ אוֹ שֶׁנִּתְגַלְּחָה פְּטוּרָה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא יט כז) "לֹא תַקִּפוּ פְּאַת רֹאשְׁכֶם" (ויקרא יט כז) "וְלֹא תַשְׁחִית פְּאַת זְקָנֶךָ" כָּל שֶׁיֶּשְׁנוֹ בְּבַל תַּשְׁחִית יֶשְׁנוֹ בְּבַל תַּקִּיף, וְאִשָּׁה שֶׁאֵינָהּ בְּבַל תַּשְׁחִית לְפִי שֶׁאֵין לָהּ זָקָן אֵינָהּ בְּבַל תַּקִּיף. לְפִיכָךְ הָעֲבָדִים הוֹאִיל וְיֵשׁ לָהֶם זָקָן אֲסוּרִין בְּהַקָּפָה:

A woman is exempt if she shaves the head of a man or has her own head shaven. differentiates between these two instances. With regard to shaving a man's head, he explains that although a woman is exempt, she is, nevertheless, forbidden to do so (Halachah 5). With regard to shaving her own head, there is no prohibition whatsoever. [Since Leviticus 19:27] states: "Do not cut off the corners of your heads and do not destroy the corners of your beards," [an association between the two prohibitions is established]. Whoever is liable for shaving is liable for cutting off the corners. Therefore, because women are not liable for shaving - since they do not have beards 35b mentions several ways to derive this concept through Biblical exegesis, the Rambam chooses to rely on the simple fact of the matter. - they are not liable for cutting off the corners [of their heads]. Accordingly, slaves 4a) are forbidden to cut off the corners of their heads, since they do possess beards.).

כָּל מִצְוֹת לֹא תַּעֲשֶׂה שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה אֶחָד אֲנָשִׁים וְאֶחָד נָשִׁים חַיָּבִים חוּץ מִ"בַּל תַּשְׁחִית" וּ"בַל תַּקִּיף" וּ"בַל יִטָּמֵא כֹּהֵן לַמֵּתִים" (משנה קידושין א ז). וְכָל מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה שֶׁהִיא מִזְּמַן לִזְמַן וְאֵינָהּ תְּדִירָה נָשִׁים פְּטוּרוֹת חוּץ מִקִּדּוּשׁ הַיּוֹם וַאֲכִילַת מַצָּה בְּלֵילֵי הַפֶּסַח וַאֲכִילַת הַפֶּסַח וּשְׁחִיטָתוֹ וְהַקְהֵל וְשִׂמְחָה שֶׁהַנָּשִׁים חַיָּבוֹת:

All the Torah's prohibitions apply equally to men and women, 35a derives this concept from Numbers 5:6, "When a man or a woman commits any of the transgressions that men commit...." with the exception of the prohibition against shaving, cutting off the corners of one's head, and the prohibition against priests contracting impurity through contact with a dead body. 35b explains that this expression excludes women.Women are not obligated with regard to all positive commandments which apply from time to time and are not constant obligations, with the exception of the sanctification of [the Sabbath] day,. Since women are obligated by the prohibition against working on the Sabbath, they are also obligated by the positive commandment of sanctifying its holiness (Berachot 20b).The restriction of this mitzvah to the Sabbath follows the opinion of the Lechem Mishnah, who maintains that the sanctification of the festivals is a Rabbinic injunction. There are, however, other opinions, which consider the mitzvah as applying to the festivals as well. eating matzah on Pesach night, 43b). eating and offering the Paschal sacrifice, 91b explains that the Torah uses the expression (Exodus 12:4 : "According to the number of souls [in a household]... individuals should be designated for the lamb," to include women in the observance of this mitzvah. hakhel, and the festive 1:1.)In this instance as well, the Torah specifically mentions the obligation of women to participate in the celebrations, as Deuteronomy 16:14 states: "And you shall rejoice, you, your son, your daughter, your male and female servants...." peace-offering for which they are obligated. 1:7.)

טֻמְטוּם וְאַנְדְּרוֹגִינוּס הֲרֵי הֵן סָפֵק, נוֹתְנִין עֲלֵיהֶן חֻמְרֵי הָאִישׁ וְחֻמְרֵי הָאִשָּׁה בְּכָל מָקוֹם וְחַיָּבִים בַּכּל. וְאִם עָבְרוּ אֵינָם לוֹקִין:

The status of a tumtum has its roots in the word atum, which means "a solid block." It refers to a person whose genitalia are covered by skin, and it is impossible to determine whether he is male or female. (See also Hilchot Ishut 2:25.)Should a tumtum undergo an operation and it be revealed that he is either male or female, he is bound by the laws which apply to that gender. and an androgynous is a combination of the Greek words meaning "man" and "woman." It refers to a person who possesses the sexual organs of both genders. (See also Hilchot Ishut 2:24.) is doubtful., we are doubtful what is his true gender. With regard to an androgynous, however, the question revolves around the Sages' failure to define his status. Therefore, the stringencies applying to both a man and a woman 4:3 explains that this refers to the prohibition against being alone with men (yichud), and the laws of ritual impurity that apply to women. are applied to them, and they are obligated by all [the mitzvot]. If, however, they transgress, they are not [liable for] lashes.

אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהָאִשָּׁה מֻתֶּרֶת לְגַלֵּחַ פְּאַת רֹאשָׁהּ הֲרֵי הִיא אֲסוּרָה לְגַלֵּחַ פְּאַת רֹאשׁ הָאִישׁ. וַאֲפִלּוּ קָטָן אָסוּר לָהּ לְגַלֵּחַ לוֹ פֵּאָה:

Although a woman is permitted to shave the corners of her own head, she is forbidden to shave the corners of a man's head. maintain that this prohibition is Rabbinic in origin. Other authorities, however, state that the prohibition stems from the Torah itself. She is even forbidden to shave the corners of a child's [head]. 57b, does not accept the Rambam's view, and maintains that a woman may shave a child's head.

וּפֵאָה זוֹ שֶׁמַּנִּיחִים בַּצְּדָעִים לֹא נָתְנוּ בּוֹ חֲכָמִים שִׁעוּר וְשָׁמַעְנוּ מִזְּקֵנֵינוּ שֶׁאֵינוֹ מַנִּיחַ פָּחוֹת מֵאַרְבָּעִים שְׂעָרוֹת. וּמֻתָּר לְלַקֵּט הַפֵּאוֹת בְּמִסְפָּרַיִם לֹא נֶאֱסַר אֶלָּא הַשְׁחָתָה בְּתַעַר:

The Sages did not determine the amount [of hair] which must be left in the corners of our temples. 181:1, defines "corners" as referring to the place where the skull is joined to the jaw. The Beit Lechem Yehudah writes that the area which the Ari zal would leave uncut extended slightly above his ears. We have, however, heard from our elders that one must leave at least forty text of the Rambam stated "four" instead of "forty." hairs.One may remove the [hairs from] the corners [of our heads] with scissors. The prohibition applies only to total removal with a razor.

דֶּרֶךְ כֹּהֲנֵי עוֹבְדֵי כּוֹכָבִים הָיָה לְהַשְׁחִית זְקָנָם. לְפִיכָךְ אָסְרָה תּוֹרָה לְהַשְׁחִית הַזָּקָן. וְחָמֵשׁ פֵּאוֹת יֵשׁ בּוֹ. לְחִי הָעֶלְיוֹן וּלְחִי הַתַּחְתּוֹן מִיָּמִין וְכֵן מִשְּׂמֹאל וְשִׁבּלֶת הַזָּקָן. וְלוֹקֶה עַל כָּל פֵּאָה וּפֵאָה. וְאִם נְטָלָן כֻּלָּן כְּאַחַת לוֹקֶה חָמֵשׁ. וְאֵינוֹ חַיָּב עַד שֶׁיְּגַלְּחֶנּוּ בְּתַעַר שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא יט כז) "וְלֹא תַשְׁחִית אֵת פְּאַת זְקָנֶךָ" גִּלּוּחַ שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ הַשְׁחָתָה. לְפִיכָךְ אִם גִּלֵּחַ זְקָנוֹ בְּמִסְפָּרַיִם פָּטוּר. וְאֵין הַמִּתְגַּלֵּחַ לוֹקֶה עַד שֶׁיְּסַיֵּעַ. וְאִשָּׁה מֻתֶּרֶת לְהַשְׁחִית זְקָנָהּ אִם יֵשׁ לָהּ שֵׂעָר בַּזָּקָן. וְאִם הִשְׁחִיתָה זְקַן הָאִישׁ פְּטוּרָה:

It is customary for pagan priests to remove their beards. (Negative Commandment 44), the Rambam notes that even in his time, it was customary for Christian monks to shave their faces. Therefore, the Torah forbade the removal of one's beard. (ibid.) and Sefer HaChinuch (Mitzvah 252) consider this prohibition to be one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.The beard has five "corners": the upper and lower cheek on both the right and left sides, and the hair on the chin. (Yoreh De'ah 181:11) writes that there are many opinions with regard to the definition of these five "corners." There, "anyone who fears heaven should fulfill all the opinions and not shave any portion of his beard with a razor." One is [liable for] lashes for the removal of each "corner.", ibid.). A person who removes them all at the same time is [liable for] five measures of lashes., ibid.; Ma'aseh Rokeach). The Beit Yosef (Yoreh De'ah 181) differs, and maintains that it is permitted to remove one's facial hair as long as one does not use a razor.In addition, as mentioned in the commentary on Halachah 1, the Minchat Chinuch and Sefer HaKovetz explain that by mentioning the fact that gentile priests remove their facial hair, the Rambam implies that removing such hair violates the prohibition of following "the paths of the gentiles." (See Chapter 11, Halachah 1.) In the context of this prohibition, the means used to remove the facial hair are of no consequence.Other authorities (Rashba, Vol. IV, Responsum 90; Shibbolei Leket; Tzemach Tzedek, Yoreh De'ah, Responsum 93) forbid the removal of one's facial hair within the context of the prohibition against a man's adorning himself in the same manner as a woman. (See Halachot 9 and 10.) In this context as well, it makes no difference how one removes the hair.Many contemporary authorities have explained that in addition to all these points, growing a beard has been accepted as a sign that a person is God-fearing and precise in his observance of the mitzvot. Accordingly, anyone who desires to be viewed as such should not remove his beard even if he does not use a razor.A person who allows himself to be shaved is not [liable for] lashes unless he provides assistance. - Note our commentary on Halachah 1.One is liable only when one shaves with a razor, as [implied by Leviticus 19:27]: "Do not destroy the corners of your beard." [We can infer that this applies only] to shaving which utterly destroys [one's facial hair]. Therefore, a person who removes his beard with scissors is exempt.A person who allows himself to be shaved is not [liable for] lashes unless he provides assistance. A woman who has facial hair is allowed to shave it. 35b derives this concept from the exegesis of the verse from Leviticus quoted above. If she shaves a man's beard, she is exempt.

הַשָּׂפָה מֻתָּר לְגַלְּחוֹ בְּתַעַר וְהוּא הַשֵּׂעָר שֶׁעַל גַּב הַשָּׂפָה הָעֶלְיוֹנָה וְכֵן הַשֵּׂעָר הַמְדֻלְדָּל מִן הַשָּׂפָה הַתַּחְתּוֹנָה. וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא מֻתָּר לֹא נָהֲגוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל לְהַשְׁחִיתוֹ אֶלָּא יְגַלֵּחַ קְצָתוֹ עַד שֶׁלֹּא יְעַכֵּב אֲכִילָה וּשְׁתִיָּה:

It is permitted to shave one's mustache 18a allows the shaving of this hair because it is not one of the five "corners" of the beard. - i.e., the hair on the upper lip, and, similarly, the hair which hangs from the lower lip. Even though the removal [of this hair] is permitted, it is customary for the Jews not to destroy it entirely.) associate its removal with the prohibitions against following the "ways of gentiles" and adorning oneself as does a woman. Rather, its ends may be removed so that it will not interfere with eating or drinking.).

הַעֲבָרַת הַשֵּׂעָר מִשְּׁאָר הַגּוּף כְּגוֹן בֵּית הַשֶּׁחִי וּבֵית הָעֶרְוָה אֵינוֹ אָסוּר מִן הַתּוֹרָה אֶלָּא מִדִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים וְהַמַּעֲבִירוֹ מַכִּין אוֹתוֹ מַכַּת מַרְדּוּת. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁאֵין מַעֲבִירִין אוֹתוֹ אֶלָּא נָשִׁים כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יְתַקֵּן עַצְמוֹ תִּקּוּן נָשִׁים. אֲבָל בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁמַּעֲבִירִין הַשֵּׂעָר הַנָּשִׁים וַאֲנָשִׁים אִם הֶעֱבִיר אֵין מַכִּין אוֹתוֹ. וּמֻתָּר לְהַעֲבִיר שְׂעַר שְׁאָר אֵיבָרִים בְּמִסְפָּרַיִם בְּכָל מָקוֹם:

The Torah does not forbid the removal of hair from other portions of the body - e.g., the armpits or the genitalia. This is, however, prohibited by the Rabbis. (Yoreh De'ah, Responsum 93) brings opinions which maintain that shaving this hair is within the scope of the Torah prohibition.The Kessef Mishneh explains the distinction between the Torah prohibition and the Rabbis' decree as follows: The Torah prohibition involves any adornment which is openly detectable. The Rabbis extended the scope of the prohibition and included even acts of beautification which are private. A man who removes [such hair] is given stripes for rebelliousness.Where does the above apply? In places where it is customary only for women to remove such hair, so that one will not beautify himself as women do. In places where it is customary for both men (Yoreh De'ah 182) states that the word "men" refers even to gentiles. Even if gentile men follow this practice, a Jew is not punished for doing so. and women to remove such hair, one is not given stripes. It is permitted 182:1) differs, and grants permission for men to remove such hair in these communities.When there are medical reasons requiring the removal of such hair, even the more stringent views allow it to be shaved off (Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De'ah 182:4). to remove hair from our other limbs with scissors 182:3). in all communities.

לֹא תַּעֲדֶה אִשָּׁה עֲדִי הָאִישׁ כְּגוֹן שֶׁתָּשִׂים בְּרֹאשָׁהּ מִצְנֶפֶת אוֹ כּוֹבַע אוֹ תִּלְבַּשׁ שִׁרְיוֹן וְכַיּוֹצֵא בּוֹ אוֹ שֶׁתְּגַלֵּחַ רֹאשָׁהּ כְּאִישׁ. וְלֹא יַעֲדֶה אִישׁ עֲדִי אִשָּׁה כְּגוֹן שֶׁיִּלְבַּשׁ בִּגְדֵי צִבְעוֹנִין וַחֲלִי זָהָב בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁאֵין לוֹבְשִׁין אוֹתָן הַכֵּלִים וְאֵין מְשִׂימִים אוֹתוֹ הַחֲלִי אֶלָּא נָשִׁים הַכּל כְּמִנְהַג הַמְּדִינָה. אִישׁ שֶׁעָדָה עֲדִי אִשָּׁה וְאִשָּׁה שֶׁעָדְתָה עֲדִי אִישׁ לוֹקִין. הַמְלַקֵּט שְׂעָרוֹת לְבָנוֹת מִתּוֹךְ הַשְּׁחוֹרוֹת מֵרֹאשׁוֹ אוֹ מִזְּקָנוֹ מִשֶּׁיְּלַקֵּט שַׂעֲרָה אַחַת לוֹקֶה מִפְּנֵי שֶׁעָדָה עֲדִי אִשָּׁה. וְכֵן אִם צָבַע שְׂעָרוֹ שָׁחוֹר מִשֶּׁיִּצְבַּע שֵׂעָר לְבָנָה אַחַת לוֹקֶה. טֻמְטוּם וְאַנְדְּרוֹגִינוּס אֵינוֹ עוֹטֵף כְּאִשָּׁה וְלֹא מְגַלֵּחַ רֹאשׁוֹ כְּאִישׁ וְאִם עָשָׂה כֵּן אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה:

A woman should not adorn herself as a man does (Negative Commandment 39) and Sefer HaChinuch (Mitzvah 542) consider this prohibition to be one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. Curiously, with regard to this and the following prohibition, the Rambam departs from his usual custom and does not mention the Biblical proof-text, Deuteronomy 22:5, for these prohibitions.e.g., she may not place a turban or a hat on her head - Needless to say, a hat that was styled for women is permitted. As the Rambam states later in the halachah, everything depends on local custom. - e.g., she may not place a turban or a hat on her head or wear armor 59a; Targum Onkelos on Deuteronomy, ibid.) directly associate this prohibition with a woman's donning armor or carrying weapons. Significantly, in the listing of mitzvot which precedes these halachot, the Rambam defines the mitzvah as prohibiting a woman from wearing "armament or a man's apparel." or the like. She may not cut [the hair of] her head as men do. read יגלה, "reveal," instead of יגלח, "cut." According to that version, the Rambam is saying that when a woman goes out without covering her head, in addition to violating the basic laws of modesty (see Hilchot Ishut 24:11-12; Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah 21:17), she is also transgressing this Torah prohibition.A man should not adorn himself as a woman does (Negative Commandment 40) and Sefer HaChinuch (Mitzvah 543) consider this prohibition to be one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.In Sefer HaMitzvot (ibid.), the Rambam mentions two rationales for this and the previous prohibition:a) Such behavior would lead to licentiousness;b) The pagans would often dress in this manner for their rituals. - e.g., he should not wear colored garments or golden bracelets in a place where such garments and such bracelets are worn only by women. Everything follows local custom. 696:8, which state that on Purim or at a wedding, this prohibition may be waived for the sake of adding to the festive mood of the celebration. The Bayit Chadash and others, however, do not accept this leniency.A man who adorns himself as a woman does, and a woman who adorns herself as a man does, are [liable for] lashes. When a man removes white hairs from among the dark hairs of his head or beard, he should be lashed, Vol. I, Responsum 210) differs, and maintains that such an act violates only a Rabbinic prohibition. His opinion, however, is not accepted by the later authorities (Darchei Teshuvah 182:15). as soon as he removes a single hair, because he has beautified himself as a woman does. Similarly, if he dyes his hair dark, he is given lashes after dyeing a single hair. 182:7).A tumtum and an androgynous may not wrap their heads [in a veil] as women do, or cut [the hair of] their head as men do. If they do [either of the above], they are not [liable for] lashes.

כְּתֹבֶת קַעֲקַע הָאֲמוּרָה בַּתּוֹרָה הוּא שֶׁיִּשְׂרֹט עַל בְּשָׂרוֹ וִימַלֵּא מְקוֹם הַשְּׂרִיטָה כָּחל אוֹ דְּיוֹ אוֹ שְׁאָר צִבְעוֹנִים הָרוֹשְׁמִים. וְזֶה הָיָה מִנְהַג הָעַכּוּ"ם שֶׁרוֹשְׁמִין עַצְמָן לַעֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים כְּלוֹמַר שֶׁהוּא עֶבֶד מָכוּר לָהּ וּמֻרְשָׁם לַעֲבוֹדָתָהּ. וּמֵעֵת שֶׁיִּרְשֹׁם בְּאֶחָד מִדְּבָרִים הָרוֹשְׁמִין אַחַר שֶׁיִּשְׂרֹט בְּאֵי זֶה מָקוֹם מִן הַגּוּף בֵּין אִישׁ בֵּין אִשָּׁה לוֹקֶה. כָּתַב וְלֹא רָשַׁם בְּצֶבַע אוֹ שֶׁרָשַׁם בְּצֶבַע וְלֹא כָּתַב בִּשְׂרִיטָה פָּטוּר עַד שֶׁיִּכְתֹּב וִיקַעֲקֵעַ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא יט כח) "וּכְתֹבֶת קַעֲקַע". בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בְּכוֹתֵב אֲבָל זֶה שֶׁכָּתְבוּ בִּבְשָׂרוֹ וְקִעְקְעוּ בּוֹ אֵינוֹ חַיָּב אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן סִיֵּעַ כְּדֵי שֶׁיַּעֲשֶׂה מַעֲשֶׂה. אֲבָל אִם לֹא עָשָׂה כְּלוּם אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה:

The tattooing which the Torah forbids (Negative Commandment 41) and Sefer HaChinuch (Mitzvah 253) consider this prohibition to be one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. involves making a cut in one's flesh and filling the slit with eye-color, ink, or with any other dye that leaves an imprint. (Mitzvah 253) states that the order mentioned by the Rambam is significant. If it is reversed and the ink is placed on the skin before an incision is made, one is exempt. TheSiftei Cohen (Yoreh De'ah 180:1), however, does not accept this view. This was the custom of the idolaters, who would make marks on their bodies for the sake of their idols, as if to say that they are like servants sold to the idol and designated for its service. (ibid.), the Rambam states that certain sects in Egypt followed these practices in his time as well.When a person makes a mark with one of the substances that leave an imprint after making a slit in any place on his body, he is [liable for] lashes. - The Tosefta (Makkot 3:9) adds that one must have the intent that the inscription is made for the sake of idol worship. This point, however, is not accepted by the halachic authorities.When a person makes a mark with one of the substances that leave an imprint after making a slit in any place on his body, he is [liable for] lashes. [This prohibition is binding on] both men and women. 180:4, states that one is exempt for branding a servant. The Ramah, however, explains that it is, nevertheless, forbidden to do so.If a person wrote and did not dye, or dyed without writing by cutting [into his flesh], he is not liable. (ibid.) explains that the prohibition against writing on one's flesh applies only when the imprint left by the ink or dye is permanent. If it is removable, it is not forbidden. In this manner, he justifies the acts of people who jot down notes on their flesh when they have no paper available. [Punishment is administered] only when he writes and dyes, as [Leviticus 19:28] states: "[Do not make] a dyed inscription [on yourselves]."To whom does this apply? To the person doing the tattooing. A person who is tattooed [by others], however, is not liable unless he assisted the tattooer to the extent that it is considered that he performed a deed. If he did not perform a deed, he is not lashed. compares this to the prohibition against shaving the corners of one's head (Halachah 1). Based on this comparison, there are authorities who maintain that although punishment is not administered - because punishment is administered only when a person commits a deed which violates a prohibition - the person who is tattooed is still considered to have transgressed this Torah prohibition.

הַשּׂוֹרֵט שְׂרִיטָה אַחַת עַל הַמֵּת לוֹקֶה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא יט כח) "וְשֶׂרֶט לָנֶפֶשׁ לֹא תִתְּנוּ בִּבְשַׂרְכֶם". אֶחָד כֹּהֵן וְאֶחָד יִשְׂרָאֵל. שָׂרַט שְׂרִיטָה אַחַת עַל חָמֵשׁ מֵתִים אוֹ חָמֵשׁ שְׂרִיטוֹת עַל מֵת אֶחָד לוֹקֶה חָמֵשׁ. וְהוּא שֶׁהִתְרוּ בּוֹ עַל כָּל אַחַת וְאַחַת:

A person who gouges himself for the dead is lashed, as [Leviticus 19:28] states: "Do not gouge your flesh for the dead." (Negative Commandment 45) and Sefer HaChinuch (Mitzvah 467) consider this prohibition to be one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. This [prohibition] applies both to priests and to Israelites. 20b and the Sifra derive this concept through the exegesis of the verse from Leviticus cited above. Although he performs only a single activity, the verse teaches us that he is held responsible for each person he has in mind.A person who makes a single gouge for five dead people or five gouges for a single dead person is [liable for] five measures of lashes, provided he is given a warning for each individual matter.).

גְּדִידָה וּשְׂרִיטָה אַחַת הִיא. וּכְשֵׁם שֶׁהָיוּ הָעַכּוּ"ם שׂוֹרְטִים בִּבְשָׂרָם עַל מֵתֵיהֶם מִפְּנֵי הַצַּעַר כָּךְ הָיוּ חוֹבְלִין בְּעַצְמָם לַעֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (מלכים א יח כח) "וַיִּתְגֹּדְדוּ כְּמִשְׁפָּטָם". גַּם זֶה אָסְרָה תּוֹרָה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים יד א) "לֹא תִתְגֹּדְדוּ". אֶלָּא שֶׁעַל מֵת בֵּין שָׂרַט בְּיָדוֹ בֵּין שָׂרַט בִּכְלִי לוֹקֶה. לַעֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים בִּכְלִי חַיָּב מַלְקוֹת בְּיָדוֹ פָּטוּר:

Gashing and gouging oneself 21a, it appears that gashing is done with an instrument, and gouging with one's bare hands. Nevertheless, they are [governed by] a single [prohibition]. 180:7), however, which allow one to beat one's flesh in grief until blood flows. Just as the pagans would gouge their flesh in grief over their dead, they would mutilate themselves for their idols, explains that this mutilation was not part of the rites used to worship the false deity - for if so, a violator would be executed - but rather a voluntary act, intended to attract the deity's attention. as [I Kings 18:28] states: "And they mutilated themselves according to their custom."This is also forbidden by the Torah, as [Deuteronomy 14:1] states: "Do not mutilate yourselves." [The difference between the two is that if one gouges himself in grief over] the dead, whether he did so with his bare hands or with an instrument, he is [liable for] lashes; for the sake of idols, if one uses an instrument, one is liable for lashes. If one does so with one's bare hands, one is exempt.).

וּבִכְלַל אַזְהָרָה זֶה שֶׁלֹּא יִהְיוּ שְׁנֵי בָּתֵּי דִּינִין בְּעִיר אַחַת זֶה נוֹהֵג כְּמִנְהָג זֶה וְזֶה נוֹהֵג כְּמִנְהָג אַחֵר. שֶׁדָּבָר זֶה גּוֹרֵם לְמַחֲלוֹקוֹת גְּדוֹלוֹת שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים יד א) "לֹא תִתְגֹּדְדוּ" לֹא תֵּעָשׂוּ אֲגֻדּוֹת אֲגֻדּוֹת:

This commandment also includes [a prohibition] (Negative Commandment 45), the Rambam explains that the interpretation which follows is an allegory, and the simple meaning of the verse is to prohibit gashing oneself in grief. Nevertheless, it is significant that the Rambam includes this "allegory" in a text which is, as he states in his introduction, "halachot, halachot." Thus, he emphasizes how important unity is to the Jewish people.There is an important halachic dimension to the Rambam's explanation in Sefer HaMitzvot. One of the principles of Torah law is that punishment is never administered for the violation of a לאו שבכללות ("a prohibition which includes within it several different injunctions;" see Hilchot Sanhedrin 18:2-3). If this allegorical interpretation of the mitzvah were considered to be included in the simple meaning of the mitzvah, this principle would also apply regarding this mitzvah, and lashes might not be administered when one gashed oneself in mourning (Kessef Mishneh). against there being two courts which follow different customs in a single city, since this can cause great strife. 14a). When, however, there is a Rabbinical court which advocates each of the differing opinions - e.g., the differences of opinion between the School of Shammai and the School of Hillel - there is no prohibition against following either view until the halachah is determined by the supreme Sanhedrin.Many authorities have advanced different explanations for the Rambam's decision. The most straightforward is that of the Radbaz (Vol. V, Responsum 1384), who explains that the Rambam favored Abbaye's view because of the emphasis on unity. Furthermore, selecting it over Ravva's in this instance does not represent a break with the accepted tradition, since the difference of opinion here does not center on positions adopted by Abbaye and Ravva independently, but rather on their interpretation of Resh Lakish's statements. [Because of the similarity in the Hebrew roots,] the prohibition against gashing ourselves [can be interpreted] to mean: "Do not separate into various different groupings." does not quote this halachah as law. It would appear that while many of the subsequent Rabbis appreciate the ideal of unity this halachah espouses, they felt that compelling people to conform to a uniform standard would create more strife than would result from the existence of different views.One of the practical applications of the issues under discussion is the issue of differences between Sephardic and Ashkenazic religious practices (and similarly, the variety of different approaches that exist within these two major groupings). All of the contemporary authorities agree that it is desirable for each group to adhere to its native customs without change. This plurality of halachic perspectives is an expression - and not a negation - of the all-encompassing unity that permeates Torah Judaism. (See Ezrat Cohen, Responsum 103.)

הַקֹּרֵחַ קָרְחָה עַל הַמֵּת לוֹקֶה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים יד א) "וְלֹא תָשִׂימוּ קָרְחָה בֵּין עֵינֵיכֶם לָמֵת". אֶחָד יִשְׂרָאֵל וְאֶחָד כֹּהֵן שֶׁשָּׂרַט עַל הַמֵּת אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה אֶלָּא אַחַת. הַקֹּרֵחַ אַרְבַּע אוֹ חָמֵשׁ קָרְחוֹת עַל מֵת אֶחָד לוֹקֶה כְּמִנְיַן הַקָּרְחוֹת וְהוּא שֶׁהִתְרוּ בּוֹ עַל כָּל קָרְחָה וְקָרְחָה. אֶחָד הַקֹּרֵחַ בְּיָדוֹ אוֹ בְּסַם אוֹ הִטְבִּיל אֶצְבְּעוֹתָיו בְּסַם וְהִנִּיחָם בַּחֲמִשָּׁה מְקוֹמוֹת בְּרֹאשׁוֹ בְּבַת אַחַת הוֹאִיל וְקָרַח חָמֵשׁ קָרְחוֹת אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהִיא הַתְרָאָה אַחַת לוֹקֶה חָמֵשׁ שֶׁהֲרֵי כֻּלָּן בָּאִין כְּאַחַת. וְחַיָּב עַל כָּל הָרֹאשׁ כְּבֵין הָעֵינַיִם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא כא ה) "לֹא יִקְרְחוּ קָרְחָה בְּרֹאשָׁם". וְכַמָּה שִׁעוּר הַקָּרְחָה כְּדֵי שֶׁיֵּרָאֶה מֵרֹאשׁוֹ כִּגְרִיס פָּנוּי בְּלִי שֵׂעָר:

A person who creates a bald spot [on his head] for a dead person is [liable for] lashes, (Negative Commandment 171) and Sefer HaChinuch (Mitzvah 468) consider this prohibition to be one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. It is significant that the Rambam did not list this prohibition together with the previous ones in Sefer HaMitzvot. as [Deuteronomy 14:1] states: "Do not make a bald spot between your eyes 37b explains that here the intent is not the area which is literally "between the eyes," but rather the center of the head. for a dead person." When either a priest or an Israelite makes a bald spot [on his head] for a dead person, he is [liable for] only a single measure of lashes. (Negative Commandment 171), the Rambam elaborates on this subject, explaining that since the mitzvah cannot be derived in its entirety from the verse in Deuteronomy, the verse in Leviticus is not considered to be a second mitzvah applying to priests alone, but rather a further definition of that same command.A person who makes four or five bald spots for a single dead person is [liable for] a measure of lashes equivalent to the number of bald spots he made, provided he received a separate warning for each bald spot. There is no difference whether one created the bald spot with his hands or with a potion. If a person dipped his fingers into a potion and positioned them in five places on his head at the same time, since he created five bald spots, he is [liable for] five measures of lashes even though only a single warning was given, for they were all created at the same time. One is liable [for creating a bald spot] on any part of the head, [not only] "between the eyes" [as is inferred from Leviticus 21:5]: "Do not make a bald spot on your heads."What 20b explains that this verse is used to define the scope of the prohibition for everyone, both priests and Israelites. is the measure of a bald spot? An area on one's head the size of a gris 6:1 defines a gris as an area which encompasses 36 hairs as they stand naturally on one's head. Contemporary authorities explain that this is approximately the size of an American dime or slightly smaller than an Israeli telephone token. which is free of hair. 180:9; Gilyon HaMaharsha.)

הַקֹּרֵחַ רֹאשׁוֹ אוֹ הַשּׂוֹרֵט בִּבְשָׂרוֹ עַל בֵּיתוֹ שֶׁנָּפַל וְעַל סְפִינָתוֹ שֶׁנִּטְבְּעָה בַּיָּם פָּטוּר וְאֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה אֶלָּא עַל הַמֵּת בִּלְבַד אוֹ הַשּׂוֹרֵט לַעֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים. הַקֹּרֵחַ קָרְחָה בְּרֹאשׁוֹ שֶׁל חֲבֵרוֹ וְהַשּׂוֹרֵט שְׂרִיטָה בִּבְשַׂר חֲבֵרוֹ וְהַכּוֹתֵב כְּתֹבֶת קַעֲקַע בִּבְשָׂרוֹ שֶׁל חֲבֵרוֹ וְהָיָה חֲבֵרוֹ מְסַיֵּעַ. בִּזְמַן שֶּׁשְּׁנֵיהֶן מְזִידִין שְׁנֵיהֶן לוֹקִין. אֶחָד שׁוֹגֵג וְאֶחָד מֵזִיד הַמֵּזִיד מִשְּׁנֵיהֶם לוֹקֶה וְהַשּׁוֹגֵג פָּטוּר:

A person who makes a bald spot on his head or gouges his flesh because his house falls or because his ship sinks at sea is exempt. One is lashed only [if he carries out these acts] for the sake of a deceased person or if he gashes his flesh for the sake of an idol.[The following laws apply] when a person creates a bald spot on a colleague's head, makes a gash on a colleague's flesh, or tattoos his colleague's flesh while his colleague assists him. If they both intended to violate the prohibition, both receive lashes. If one violated the prohibition inadvertently and the other did so intentionally, the one who performed the act intentionally is [liable for] lashes, and his colleague is exempt.