Page 184 - Tzurba M'Rabanan Volume1

182 · Hilchot Pe’ot Harosh Tzurba M’Rabanan

to this principle. Indeed, the same conclusion thus sentenced to lashes.
can be reached from examining the Rambam’s The Acharonim point out that this under-
4
abridged Sefer HaMitzvot. There he defines the standing is not just the Ra’avad’s interpretation of
43 positive commandment as follows: the Rambam, but is in fact self-evident from the
rd
ופיקת אל 'נש ז"ע ירמוככ שאר תאפ ףיקהל אלש Rambam. The reader will recall that the Talmud
םכשאר תאפ offered three options to explain the Tanna’s rul-
ing that the nikaf receives lashes: the Tanna fol-
“Not to round the corners of the head like cler- lows the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda that one can
gymen of avoda zara, as it says, ‘Do not round receive lashes for violating a lav even in the ab-
the corners of your heads.’”
sence of an action, the Tanna refers to a case in
Here, again, the Ra’avad takes exception: which one removed his own hair (Rava), or the
Tanna refers to a case in which the nikaf assisted
ףקינל ואלו ףיקמל ואל
the makif. Since the halacha (Rambam, Hilchot
“There is a lav for both the makif and the nikaf.” Sanhedrin 18:2) does not follow the opinion of
From both comments of the Ra’avad, it appears Rabbi Yehuda but rather insists on an action as
that the Ra’avad understood that according to the a prerequisite to the punishment of lashes, we
opinion of the Rambam there exists no lav for the would not expect the Rambam to codify the first
nikaf to have his תואפ removed, thus prompting explanation of the Talmud.
the Ra’avad to write his own dissenting view. Why, though, does the Rambam only codi-
Three questions immediately arise. First, how fy the third explanation (Rav Ashi)? Why does
can we reconcile this understanding of the Ram- the Rambam rule against the second explanation
bam with Rambam’s ruling that the nikaf receives (Rava)? As mentioned above, Rambam rules
5
malkot when he assists the makif – if there is no lav that one who removes both of his own תואפ re-
for the nikaf, how can he receive malkot? Second, ceives two sets of lashes, one for each האפ, im-
how did the Rambam understand the Talmud? plying that if he removes only one of his תואפ,
Last, where in the words of the Rambam did the he receives one set of lashes, not two sets as Rava
Ra’avad see this understanding? ruled. This begs the conclusion that the Rambam
It would appear that the Ra’avad understood felt that the dispute between Rav Ashi and Rava
that the Rambam holds that when the nikaf as- was not merely a technical one about to which
sists the makif in the haircutting process, he re- case the Tanna was referring. Rather, there is a
ceives lashes not because he has violated the lav fundamental argument between them: Accord-
of the nikaf (for indeed no such lav exists accord- ing to Rava, there exists a lav for both the makif
ing to the Rambam), but rather because he has vi- and the nikaf, such that if one removes his own
olated the lav of the makif. The act of assisting the hair he receives two sets of lashes as he has vio-
makif effectively turns the nikaf into a makif with lated two negative commandments. Rav Ashi
all of the accompanying ramifications (i.e., vio- fundamentally disagrees: there is no lav for the
lation of a lav punishable by malkot). According nikaf; only the makif is prohibited by the Torah
to the Rambam, if the nikaf remains completely and thus the nikaf can only get lashes if he, too,
passive, he has violated nothing; if he assists the becomes a makif by assisting the nikaf. The Ram-
makif, then he, too, is considered a makif and is bam ruled in favor of Rav Ashi and thus, ipso

4. See, for example, Malbim to Vayikra 19:27.
5. Hilchot Avoda Zara 12:1

This volume is not to be distributed. Copies are for the personal use of purchaser only.