In regards to your piece 2nd piece on Makos 20b titled THE SOURCE THAT ONE RECEIVES MULTIPLE SETS OF "MALKUS" FOR SHAVING HIS "PE'OS",
>>2) THE SOURCE THAT ONE RECEIVES MULTIPLE SETS OF "MALKUS" FOR SHAVING HIS "PE'OS"
QUESTION: The Mishnah teaches that a person who makes five Seritos on his body because of a single Mes is liable for five sets of Malkus. The Beraisa adds that a person who makes five Korchos on his head because of a single Mes is liable for five sets of Malkus. In both cases this is derived from a verse.
The Mishnah also teaches that according to the Rabanan who argue with Rebbi Eliezer, a person is liable for two sets of Malkus for shaving off both Pe'os of the head, and five sets of Malkus for shaving off the five Pe'os of the Zakan (beard). (The Girsa of most Rishonim, and of the Dikdukei Soferim in the Mishnah, is that a person is " Chayav Al ha'Rosh Shtayim.") In these two cases, however, no verse is cited as a source to show that one is liable for multiple sets of Malkus. Why is no source necessary?
ANSWERS:
(a) The RIVAN explains that it is not necessary to derive from an extra verse that one is liable for multiple sets of Malkus in these cases. Rather, the fact that the verse refers to the Isur as " Pe'as ha'Rosh" implies that one is liable for a separate set of Malkus for each Pe'ah that he cuts. He adds that the same logic applies to Seritah and Korchah. When a verse is cited as a source for multiple sets of Malkus in the cases of Seritah and Korchah, the inference from the verse is not from the fact that there is an extra verse, but rather from the fact that the Torah calls each one an individual "Korchah" or "Seret." However, the Rivan concludes that this explanation is inaccurate ("Gimgum"), since the Beraisa implies that the Halachah is derived from an extra letter or word in the verse.
(b) The TOSFOS HA'ROSH and the RITVA in Shevuos (3a) write that some say that since the Torah lists the Isurim of Gilu'ach ha'Zakan and Pe'as ha'Rosh together with the Isurim of Seritah and Korchah (Vayikra 21:5 and 19:27), there is a Hekesh between them which teaches the laws of Pe'as ha'Rosh from the laws of Seritah. Just as one is liable for two sets of Malkus for making two Seritos, he is liable for two sets of Malkus for cutting two Pe'os.
The Tosfos ha'Rosh and Ritva reject this approach, because the Gemara cites separate verses for Seritah and for Korchah to teach this Halachah. If the Isurim can be learned from each other through a Hekesh (in Vayikra 21:5), then only one verse should be necessary.
The RA'AVAD, RASH MI'SHANTZ, and the TORAS KOHANIM (Parshas Kedoshim, Perek 6:3) defend this explanation. They explain that there is no genuine Hekesh between the two Isurim. Rather, the law that a person may be liable for multiple sets of Malkus for Gilu'ach ha'Zakan (for Kohanim) is derived from the fact that it is written (in Vayikra 21:5) between the verses of Korchah and Seritah, both of which have multiple sets of Malkus. The verse which teaches the Isur of Pe'as ha'Rosh and Gilu'ach ha'Zakan (for Yisraelim) precedes the verse of Seritah (in Vayikra 19:27), but the letter "Vav" at the beginning of the verse of Seritah teaches that there is a Halachah of Seritah which applies to Pe'as ha'Rosh and Gilu'ach ha'Zakan as well.
(c) TOSFOS and the RITVA in Shevuos (3a) explain that a verse is necessary only for Korchah and Seritah, but not for the Isur against shaving the Pe'os. The reason for this is the principle that one is liable for individual sets of Malkus for sinning with separate entities. For example, a Kohen Gadol who lives with five different Almanos is liable for five sets of Malkus (even though he received only one Hasra'ah), because the five women are "Gufin Muchlakin," separate entities of Isur (see Tosfos 20b, DH Lo Tzericha).
Each Pe'ah is defined by its different location, and therefore each one is considered a separate entity. A Seritah, in contrast, is not limited to any particular location. Therefore, a Seritah or a Korchah on any part of the head should be the same as a Seritah or Korchah on any other part of the head (and one should be liable for only one set of Malkus for making multiple cuts), if not for the verse that teaches that each Seritah or Korchah should be viewed as a separate entity.<<
I had two questions. 1) Why don't Tosfos and the Ritva answer like the others? 2) What are practical differences between the two answers?
Yitzy, United States
2) There is a nafka mina that if one says "Peiot Mechalkot", as Tosfos Shavuos 3a DH Chada writes, then one only requires one warning in order to receive a separate set Malkus for each different Peah.
KOL TUV
Dovid Bloom
1)
(a) It may well be that the Rivan in Makos and the Tosfos in Shevuos are in fact the same Shittah. The Rivan writes "deZil Hacha Ika Peah veZil Hacha Ika Peah"; "go this way and there is a Peah and go this way and there is a Peah". We can understand this to mean that there are different Peiot in different parts of the head and therefore one is liable malkus for each Peah. This can be excatly the same thing that Tosfos calls Gufin Muchlakin; "each Peah is defined by its different location". This is another way of saying that wherever one goes there is a Peah.
(b) We can say that Tosfos and the Ritva do not answer like the Ra'avad and the Rash Mishantz for the same reason that Tosfos Rosh disagrees with the latter.
Behatzlachah
Dovid Bloom