If the animal killed a man, who is commanded in all mitzvot, yes, its owner should have to pay the ransom, but if the animal killed a woman, who is obligated in only some mitzvot, no, he is exempt from the ransom. And conversely: If the Torah had taught us that men and women are equated only in this case of the ransom, one might say that because there is the loss of life the Merciful One has pity on her and therefore the owner of the animal is always obligated to pay the ransom. But with regard to those two other categories, I might say no, a woman is not equated to a man. Therefore it was necessary to mention them all.

§ The mishna teaches that women are obligated in all prohibitions except for the prohibitions of: Do not round the corners of one’s head, and: Do not destroy the corners of your beard, and: Do not contract ritual impurity from a corpse. The Gemara asks: Granted, a woman of priestly lineage is not obligated in the mitzva of: Do not contract ritual impurity from a corpse, as it is written: ''Speak to the priests, the sons of Aaron, and say to them: None shall become impure for the dead among his people'' (Leviticus 21:1). This verse teaches that the prohibition applies to the sons of Aaron, but not the daughters of Aaron. But from where do we derive the prohibitions of: Do not round the corners of one’s head, and: Do not destroy the corners of your beard?

The Gemara answers that this is as it is written: ''You shall not round the corners of your head and you shall not destroy the corners of your beard'' (Leviticus 19:27). The juxtaposition of the two prohibitions teaches that anyone who is included in the prohibition against destroying the beard is included in the prohibition against rounding the head. And since these women are not included in the prohibition against destroying, they are also not included in the prohibition against rounding the head.

The Gemara asks: And from where do we derive that women are not obligated in the prohibition against destroying the corners of one’s beard? The Gemara answers: If you wish, propose a logical reason, as ordinarily women do not have a beard. And if you wish, cite a verse that teaches this point, as the verse states: ''You shall not round the corners of your head [roshekhem] and you shall not destroy the corners of your beard [zekanekha]'' (Leviticus 19:27).

The Gemara explains: From the fact that the verse changed its language, as the term ''your head [roshekhem]'' is in the plural while ''your beard [zekanekha]'' is in the singular, it can be inferred that if so, if the prohibition against destroying one’s beard applied to everyone, let the Merciful One write: And you shall not destroy the corners of your beards [zekanekhem], in the plural, so that the end of the verse parallels the beginning. What is indicated by the fact that the verse states: ''And you shall not destroy the corners of your beard [zekanekha],'' in the singular? This serves to teach: Your beard is included, but not your wife’s beard.

The Gemara asks: And is a woman not included in this prohibition? But isn’t it taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Nega’im 4:8): The beard of a woman and that of a eunuch, if they grow facial hair, are considered like a beard for all matters. What, is it not the case that this statement is referring to the prohibition against destroying?

Abaye said: You cannot say that the baraita is referring to destroying, as it is derived that a woman is exempt through the verbal analogy of ''the corners of your beard'' (Leviticus 19:27) here and ''the corners of their beard'' (Leviticus 21:5) from the sons of Aaron: Just as there, in the case of priests, women are certainly exempt from the mitzva, as the verse is referring to the male descendants of Aaron who perform the Temple service and not to women, so too here, with regard to the prohibition against destroying one’s beard, which is stated to all Jews, women are exempt. At this stage the Gemara assumes that the exclusion of women denoted by the verse: ''Speak to the priests, the sons of Aaron'' (Leviticus 21:1), which excludes women, is applied to all the mitzvot stated in that chapter, including destroying the corners of one’s beard.

The Gemara asks: But if we maintain that when the Merciful One writes: ''The sons of Aaron'' (Leviticus 21:1), it is written with regard to the entire manner of that chapter, including the prohibition against destroying one’s beard, let the verse, i.e., the Torah, be silent and not state about this prohibition concerning all Jews. And this halakha could be derived through an a fortiori inference, as I could say the following: And if with regard to priests, for whom the verse includes additional mitzvot, this prohibition applies only to the sons of Aaron and not the daughters of Aaron, is it not all the more so the case with regard to Israelites, who have fewer mitzvot, that only men should be obligated and not women?

The Gemara answers: Nevertheless, the verbal analogy is necessary. Were it not for the verbal analogy, I would say that the halakhot of ritual impurity concluded discussion of that matter. In other words, the exclusion of women denoted by the phrase ''the sons of Aaron'' applies only to the halakhot of impurity, which appear immediately after that phrase. Conversely, the other halakhot mentioned in this chapter, including the prohibition against destroying the beard, apply to women as well.

The Gemara asks: If so, now too, let us say that the halakhot of ritual impurity concluded discussion of that matter, and the daughters of Aaron are also prohibited to destroy their beards. And if you maintain that the reason the prohibition stated with regard to priests does not apply to women is due to the verbal analogy employing the term ''the corners of,'' which serves to connect the halakha stated with regard to priests with the halakha stated with regard to all Jews, that verbal analogy is necessary for that which is taught in a baraita: The verse states with regard to priests: ''Neither shall they shave off the corners of their beard'' (Leviticus 21:5). One might have thought that a priest would be liable even if he shaved his beard with scissors. Therefore the verse states, in a command issued to all Jews: ''And you shall not destroy the corners of your beard'' (Leviticus 19:27). This teaches that one is liable only for destroying the beard to the root, which is not achieved with scissors.

The baraita continues: One might have thought that if he extracted his hairs with tweezers, which uproot hairs, or small planes [uvirhitni], he should likewise be liable for destroying his hair. The verse therefore states: ''Neither shall they shave off the corners of their beard,'' to teach that shaving alone is prohibited and these actions are not considered shaving. How can both these requirements for the prohibition be met? The verse is referring to a type of shaving that involves destruction. You must say this is shaving with a razor. According to this baraita, the verbal analogy is necessary to define the action included in the prohibition against destroying, not to teach who is included in the prohibition.

The Gemara explains: If it is so that the verbal analogy teaches only which action is included in the prohibition against destroying, let the verse write: That which is of your beard. What is added by the expression ''the corners of your beard''? Conclude two conclusions from it, both the definition of the prohibition against shaving and the exemption of women.

The Gemara returns to its question. But that which is taught in the baraita: The beard of a woman and that of a eunuch, if they grew facial hair, are considered like a beard for all matters, with regard to what halakha is this stated? Mar Zutra says: It is stated with regard to ritual impurity from leprosy. A leprous sore in the beard of a woman or a eunuch is treated like an affliction of the beard, not like an affliction on the skin. Different halakhot apply to leprous sores that develop on various parts of the body.

The Gemara objects: Concerning ritual impurity from leprosy, it is written explicitly: ''And when a man or woman has a plague upon the head or upon the beard'' (Leviticus 13:29). This indicates that there is no difference between a man and woman with regard to the beard in the case of leprosy. The baraita would not state a halakha that is explicit in the verse. Rather, Mar Zutra says: This baraita is referring to ritual purification from leprosy, i.e., women can also be purified from leprosy of the beard.

The Gemara asks: With regard to ritual purification from leprosy it is also obvious: Since impurity applies to a woman, purity likewise applies to her. The Gemara answers: It was necessary to state this with regard to the impurity of afflictions of the beard, as it might enter your mind to say that this verse is written disjunctively, i.e., that the phrase: ''And when a man or woman has a plague upon the head,'' applies to both a man or a woman; whereas when it states: ''Or upon the beard,'' we have come back to the case of a man alone. Therefore the baraita teaches us that this phrase is not referring solely to a man, as there is no difference between a man and a woman with regard to leprosy.

Isi taught in a baraita: Women are also exempt from the prohibition: Do not make baldness upon your heads, a prohibition against tearing out one’s hair in grief over someone’s death. The Gemara asks: What is the reason of Isi? The Gemara explains that he teaches as follows: The verse states: ''You are the sons of the Lord your God; you shall not cut yourselves, nor make any baldness between your eyes for the dead. For you are a holy people to the Lord your God'' (Deuteronomy 14:1–2). This verse, which applies to sons and not daughters, is referring to causing baldness, and therefore this prohibition includes only men.

The Gemara asks: Do you say that this is referring to causing baldness, or is it perhaps referring only to the prohibition against cutting, which appears first? The Gemara answers that when it states: ''For you are a holy people to the Lord your God,'' it is stated with regard to the prohibition against cutting, and this verse applies to both men and women, as they are all members of God’s people. How then do I realize and explain the emphasis on sons and not daughters? This is referring to the prohibition against causing baldness.

The Gemara asks: And what did you see to include cutting and to exclude causing baldness? Perhaps the opposite is true, and causing baldness applies to men and women whereas cutting applies only to men. The Gemara answers: I include cutting, whose prohibition is broader, as it is applicable both in a place of hair and not in a place of hair; and I exclude causing baldness, which is more limited, as it applies only in a place of hair.

The Gemara asks: But one can say that the limitation of sons and not daughters applies both to causing baldness and to cutting, and when the verse writes: ''For you are a holy people to the Lord your God,'' that is written with regard to scoring oneself. The prohibition against scoring oneself is derived from a verbal analogy from a verse stated with regard to priests (see Leviticus 21:5), which applies to both men and women. The Gemara answers: Isi maintains that scoring oneself and cutting