My dear Jon, Shalom!

I will excuse your rudeness at this time. Did you say that you were not Jewish?

Note that the Boraitta quoted by me permits the use of scissors, an implement
designed for cutting objects – including the hairs of one's head &ca. – seeing
that scissors are designed in such a way that when the two pivoted blades rest
against a man's face, the thickness of the one blade prevents the other blade
from reaching down to the stump of the hairs. So long as the intent is to trim
one's beard, leaving the root and stump of the beard in tact, it is permissible
(cf. Nazir 40b, Tosfos s.v., דתניא). The general rule arising from all this is:
Any thing which is ordinarily used for removing hair cannot be used to remove
all the hair on one's beard.
While the Boraitta permits using implements not ordinarily designed or used in
cutting hairs to be used for cutting one's beard (e.g. a carpenter's plane),
still, any shaving instrument which would normally be used in cutting hairs
(e.g. scissors) cannot be used to cut one's beard unless, in doing so, it kept
the stump of the hairs in tact. This would rule out the use of most electric
razors since they were not only designed for shaving the beard, but they
actually cut off the very stump of the hair, whereas the Torah enjoins us: "Let
them not SHAVE, etc." (Meaning, they are not allowed to remove the entire beard
by using any instrument designed for such purposes).

Let us look at the Artscroll's definition of "hashchasah" (השחתה) by a razor. In
Lev. 19:27, they write that the Sages have interpreted a razor as being
something that destroys the beard, "meaning an implement that both shaves
(גילוח) and destroys by cutting to the level of the skin." (Yoreh De'ah 181: 3,
10). These are also nearly the same words as RASHI, as well as the commentators
on the Shulhan Arukh (e.g. Beis Lechem Yehudah) and "Lehem Mishne" on the
Rambam. In Jewish Law we cannot have an implement that both shaves and destroys
the beard down to the level of the skin! Thus do we find in the Boraitta!

So, too, the Boraitta would rule out the use of depilatory creams used in
removing hair, since the use of such creams were used in ancient times to remove
the hair on women's legs. (According to the book "Alpha-Beta deBen-Sira," King
Solomon had devised a depilatory cream which he called "neskasir," consisting of
lime, water and orpiment, for removing the hairs on the legs of the Queen of
Sheba. Despite the fact that this cream has existed for many centuries, the
Sages shunned away from its use on their beards.) Rabbi Shlomo Ganzfried, in his
Kitzur Shulhan Arukh, section 170, permits the use of such creams.

But to prove this more effectively, look closely at the words of Maimonides
(Hilchos Avodas Kokhavim 12:7) and draw from it your conclusions, who wrote:

"…Now he is not liable until he shaves it off with a razor, as it is written:
'And neither shall you destroy the corner (Heb. פאת) of your beard,' [that is],
shaving that carries with it destruction. Wherefore, if he had shaved off his
beard with scissors, he is exempt (Heb. פטור)."

"...ואינו חייב עד שיגלחנו בתער שנאמר ולא תשחית את פאת זקנך, גילוח שיש בו השחתה.
לפיכך אם גלח זקנו במספרים פטור."

About which words, the Kesef Mishne (ibid.) wrote:
"…At any rate, one ought to look diacritically at what he wrote, [saying], 'if
he had shaved off his beard with scissors he is exempt.' For its implication is
that there is a prohibition [to cut off one's beard with scissors], for he had
rather used [the words] 'it is permitted,' similar to rounding off the head. It
seems reasonable to say that he has taken up the habitual tongue used in our
Mishnah, and that it wasn't necessarily intended [to be as he stated], for as a
first resort it is also permitted [to shave off the beard with scissors]."
"...ומ"מ איכה למידק במ"ש אם גלח זקנו במספריים פטור דמשמע איסורא איכא דמותר מבעי
ליה, דומיא דהקפת הראש. ונראה לומר דסירכא דלישנא דמתניתין נקט ולאו דוקא דלכתחלה
נמי שרי."

The Kesef Mishne canceled, as it were, the words of Maimonides, simply by saying
"it seems reasonable to say that he has taken up the habitual tongue, etc."
דסירכא דלישנא דמתניתין נקט , when, in actuality, this was exactly what
Maimonides intended to say – viz., had he shaved off his beard with scissors, he
would be "exempt," meaning, exempt from punishment but forbidden to do so as a
first resort! For this, after all, was what Rabbi Eleazar (R. Eliezer) said in
the Tosefta Makkos 4:10!

"R. Eleazar (R. Eliezer) says, 'If he removed them all (i.e. the hairs of his
beard) at once, he is not liable save on one count; [however] when he takes up
[the implement] and removes [his hair], [and] takes it up [again] and removes
[his hair], he is liable thereby for each one, yet, is he not liable until he
removed it (i.e. the beard) with a razor. Had he removed it with scissors or
with a [carpenter's] plane, he is exempt."

Rabbi Yosef Qafih z"l, who sat with Chief Rabbi emeritus (R. Ovadiah Yosef) in
the High Court of Appeals in Jerusalem, wrote in his commentary on Maimonides
(ibid.) that the Kesef Mishne did not accurately portray the opinion of
Maimonides, who made shaving one's beard off with a pair of scissors an act
that, while not reprehensible, is forbidden as a first resort.

In Jewish law, no Court can cancel the words of another Court unless it were
greater than the first in wisdom and in number. If the Sages were like angels,
then we are like men; and if they were like men, we are like donkeys! Who dares
compare himself with Rabbi Eleazar (R. Eliezer), the Sage of our Tosefta, and
will feign cancel his words!? Is there anyone who puts himself on a pedestal to
contradict this teaching? Moreover, would you support an erroneous Halacha if
you knew that it was based on a misquotation of Maimonides and a "speculative
approach" by saying: "It seems reasonable to say that he has taken up the
habitual tongue without really meaning it!!??" Give Maimonides more credit than
that! If not, there is no Rabbi who should be taken at his word!

David





--- In maimonides@yahoogroups.com, "Jonathan Baker" <jjbaker@...> wrote:
>
> DbA:
>
> > As for Rambam, my intention was that in this particular instance, we (as or=
> > thodox Jews) do, indeed, rule halachically like the Rambam concering our be=
> > ards.=20
>
> And my point is that in fact the Rambam doesn't rule like you want him to
> have done. Nor do later halachists.
>
> > You also made this one erroneous statement, saying: "We do not pasken by th=
> > e Gemara." Actually, all of the great exponents of our oral laws (e.g. the =
>
> Duh. It's like "we don't determine the law by the Constitution". The Gemara
> is the basis of the laws, but it is not the final word. That is because the
> Gemara is a snapshot of (part of) the Oral Law as it existed 1500 years ago.
> But the Torah she b'al PEH continues to grow and develop, as new situations
> crop up, new variants of old situations, new circumstances in new cases, etc.
>
> So no, we Orthodox Jews do NOT pasken by the Gemara, by the bare uninterpreted
> word of the Gemara, while ignoring the ensuing 1500 years of halachic develop-
> ment. Especially in cases like shaving, where the technology has changed
> several times in the past 200 years, we must depend on contemporary psak.
>
> > And, no, I never trim my beard with a pair of scissors, although it is tota=
> > lly permissible to do so. Rambam is against removing one's beard entirely w=
> > ith a pair of scissors - even though he might be exempt from punishment. He=
> > re, Rabbi Yosef Qafih agress that Rambam would say "exempt, but forbidden t=
> > o do so as a first resort." This rule does not only apply to Sabbath laws.
>
> You only get there by ignoring the Rambam's own words in Hil. AZ 12:6, which
> I repeat again:
>
> UMUTAR LELAKET HAPE'OT BEMISPARAYIM LO NE'ESAR ELA HASHCHATAH BETA'AR.
>
> Only "destruction with a razor" is assur.
>
> > The source used here is actually Sifra (P. Keddoshim), on Lev. 19:27, which=
>
> > The Boraitta in Sifra (P. Keddoshim) says:
>
> And incidentally, whether you like it or not, validates the use of a
> modern safety razor:
>
> > e hairs are not removed). Or, [had it only said], 'Nor shalt thou destroy t=
> > he corner of thy beard,' it may have been thought here, 'Even if he had rem=
> > oved them with tweezers, or with a [carpenter's] plane that he would still =
> > be culpable.' It comes to teach you, 'let them not shave the corner of thei=
> > r beard' (Meaning, the word 'shave' implies the use of any implement which =
> > is ordinarily used in shaving. This would, therefore, exclude tools used in=
> > woodwork, such as a plane, or pair of tweezers, from falling under the sam=
> > e category, meaning such tools are permitted even though they cut the stump=
> > of the hair, for such instruments were never designed for cutting hair). L=
> > o! How is shaving done in such a way that there is destruction [of the bear=
> > d]? Say that this [can be done had he used] a razor."
>
> Did you see your words "a carpenter's plane"? If we can permit an electric
> shaver because it works like a scissors, even though it doesn't look like
> a scissors, we must equally permit a safety razor, because it works like a
> carpenter's plane (have you ever done any woodworking, maybe as a kid?).
>
> > This, my friend, is the sorce for our growing out our beards - where, in ac=
> > tuality, we find a teaching in the Bible (Lev. 21:5) that speaks specifical=
> > ly about the priests (and not about ordinary Israelites), and another verse=
> > that speaks about everyone (Lev. 19:27), and where our Rabbis drew an anal=
> > ogy (Heb. gezeirah shovah) between them.
>
> And the braita you brought talks on and on about the issur being on a razor
> davka, JUST AS THE RAMBAM SAID AND WHICH YOU ELIDED.
>
> > If you'd like more proof, I'll be happy to show you more!
>
> Proofs based on ignoring evidence, I'll leave to other people.
>
> --
> name: jon baker web: http://www.panix.com/~jjbaker
> address: jjbaker@... blog: http://thanbook.blogspot.com
>