The study of *Masechet Makkot* today, on *Daf Chaf Aleph*, is dedicated in honor of Morris Dwek, Sammy Esses, Yaron Mizrachi, and Tubi Assis for their tireless efforts for the *Kahal Kadosh* *Beit Yaakov*. May Hashem grant them continued strength to serve the community *Leshem Shamayim* in good health and prosperity. Additionally, we study today for the elevation of the soul of Avraham ben Ester, and for the complete recovery of Dina bat Sarah. May their healing come swiftly and fully.
We begin our exploration by examining a statement from the *Mishnah*: "If a person scratches themselves due to the anguish of a death, they are liable for each scratch." The *Gemara* elaborates on this by referencing the verse *Vesaret*, which teaches that one is only liable for scratches made in mourning for a deceased person. Thus, the implication is clear: one is not liable for scratches made due to other forms of anguish, such as the collapse of a house or the sinking of a boat.
Furthermore, the *Gemara* seeks to clarify: how do we know that if a person scratches themselves five times over one deceased, they are liable for each scratch? The verse *Vesaret* teaches us that each scratch incurs its own liability. The *Gemara* continues to discuss the implications of the term *lanefesh*, indicating that one is only liable for each scratch made in mourning for a deceased individual.
Rabbi Yossi introduces a novel idea: if one scratches themselves once for five different deceased individuals, they would be liable for each one. The *Gemara* confirms this by interpreting the term *lanefesh* to mean that every individual soul is accounted for separately. However, the *Gemara* then raises a question about the apparent contradiction in the interpretation of *lanefesh* in relation to mourning for the deceased versus other forms of anguish.
Rabbi Yossi maintains that the act of scratching and the act of cutting oneself are considered the same prohibition. This leads to the conclusion that whether one scratches with their hand or with an instrument, they are liable for the same infractions, as both actions are categorized under the same prohibition.
Shmuel then states that if one scratches with an instrument, they are liable. The *Gemara* clarifies that this demonstrates that the term *serita* can also apply when using a tool. Therefore, if one scratches themselves with a tool while mourning, they incur liability for both the act of scratching and the act of cutting.
The *Gemara* continues to explore the implications of these laws, particularly regarding the act of scratching in mourning. It notes that if a person scratches themselves while engaged in idolatrous practices, they are liable only for the act performed with their hand, as that is the customary way of engaging in such practices. However, if they use a tool, they are liable for both the act of scratching and the act of cutting.
As we move through the *Mishnah*, we encounter the prohibition against writing tattoos. The *Mishnah* states that one must not write on their skin in any manner that resembles tattooing. This includes using ink or any substance that leaves a permanent mark. The *Gemara* emphasizes that one is only liable if both writing and pricking occur, as both actions are necessary to constitute a tattoo.
Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda states that one is only liable for writing God's name. The *Gemara* clarifies that this refers to the name associated with idolatrous practices, thus prohibiting writing such names on one’s body. The underlying principle remains that any form of writing on the body is prohibited, but liability for punishment is specifically tied to writing names associated with idolatry.
Rav Malkiya introduces additional prohibitions regarding the application of ashes to wounds, as it may appear as if one is tattooing. This is prohibited due to the appearance it creates, even if the intent is medicinal. The *Gemara* discusses the nuances of this prohibition, explaining that while one may have a valid reason to apply ashes, the appearance of tattooing renders it forbidden.
In our ongoing exploration of the laws surrounding mourning, the *Mishnah* discusses the case of a *Nazir* who drinks wine. If warned not to drink, the *Nazir* is only liable for one infraction for continuous drinking throughout the day. However, if warned multiple times, each warning incurs a separate liability.
Lastly, we learn that a person who plows with two different species of animals incurs multiple infractions for a single act. The *Gemara* explains that this is due to the various prohibitions that arise from the act of plowing, which can encompass multiple laws regarding interspecies work and other related prohibitions.
As we conclude today’s study, we reflect on the intricate web of laws governing our actions, particularly in the context of mourning and the respect due to the deceased. The discussions in *Masechet Makkot* serve as a reminder of the profound responsibilities we hold within our community and the importance of adhering to these sacred laws.