Halachos of Peyos Harosh
Parsha Pages | May 05, 2024
Print This Article
View Original PDF

Halachos of Peyos Harosh

Parsha Pages | June 27, 2025

based on an essay by Rabbi Aryeh Lebowitz

I. Introduction.

One of the clearly distinguishable physical characteristics of the Torah-observant Jewish male is the “side locks” that grow on either side of his head. The Torah (Vayikra 19:27) explicitly prohibits one from “rounding off the corners” of the head. The prohibition clearly refers to certain types of haircuts that are considered off limits for Jewish males. The exact details of the prohibition to “round off the head” are somewhat complicated and the basic requirements are often confused for stringencies and vice versa. We are attempting to outline the requirement of growing “peyos” and examine the sources for the variance of opinion and practice under Jewish law.

II. Reasons for the Mitzvah.

A. Sefer Hachinuch (Mitzvah 181) explains that the reason for the prohibition of shaving off the peyos is to keep us away from avodah zarah. Since the idol worshipers used to cut off the hair on the sides of their heads while leaving the hair on top to grow, we are required to maintain a physical appearance that distinguishes us from idol worshipers. In fact, the Tur (Yoreh Deah 181) cites the Rambam as having explained the mitzvah in a similar manner. The Tur, however, criticizes the need to provide any reason at all for the mitzvah, considering that all mitzvos, whether we understand them or not, are an expression of the will of G-d.

1. The leading Acharonim have debated both the basis for and content of the Tur’s critique of the Rambam. After all, the idea of explaining mitzvos rationally is not unique to the Rambam and is widely accepted as a proper way to motivate increased adherence to mitzvos, even as we know that we will never fully and thoroughly understand any mitzvah or its reasons. In fact, the Beis Yosef (ad. loc.) points out that the Rambam himself stresses the need to perform mitzvos regardless of our understanding of them. It is difficult to understand how the Tur can accuse the Rambam of espousing a philosophy of religion that limits itself to human rational faculties. Additionally, Beis Yosef points out, the explanation offered by the Rambam for this particular mitzvah is hardly the Rambam’s own innovation. The juxtaposition of the prohibition of cutting the peyos with other prohibitions relating to idolatry (tattoos, cutting the skin, divining) strongly suggest that peyos are also related to protection from idolatrous practices. In light of the difficulties with the Tur’s critique of the Rambam, a variety of explanations of the precise point of dispute between the Tur and the Rambam have been suggested:

  • a. The Darchei Moshe (ad. loc.) suggests that the Tur never meant to accuse the Rambam of rejecting irrational elements of our religion. He merely emphasized that even when the Rambam’s reason for growing peyos does not apply (e.g. if one can creatively cut his hair in a way that does not include peyos but also does not resemble idolaters) the prohibition would still apply.
  • b. The Taz (Yoreh Deah 181:1) suggests that if the reason for the prohibition relates to idolatrous practices, one may be permitted to compromise on the halacha in situations that involve maintaining peace with the government (see Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 172:2). The Tur’s primary contention is that there should be no dispensation for shalom malchus as there is for the conventional prohibition of idolatrous practices.
  • c. Rabbi Reuvein Marogliyos, in his notes to Sheilos U’teshuvots Min Ha’shamayim, questions the reason offered by the Sefer Hachinuch and the Rambam. If the purpose of the mitzvah were to keep us away from idolatrous practices, one would imagine that the prohibition would be strongest when serving G-d in the Beis Hamikdash. Yet, we find the exact opposite to be true. We allow the Leviyim at the commencement of their service, and the nazir at the conclusion of his nezirus to shave off all of their hair (including the peyos). Rabbi Margoliyos explains that both the case of the Levi and Nazir include inherent reminders that the intention is purely for the sake of Heaven and is not sullied by any idolatrous intentions. The leviyim are only supposed to shave their heads as they commence their avodah where it is self-evident that they are going to be serving G-d. Once they have begun their avodah, they are no longer permitted to shave their heads. As for the nazir, the fact that he burns his hair as part of a sacrifice to Hashem clearly demonstrates that there are no idolatrous intentions. Also, neither the Levi nor the Nazir would leave any hair on the top of their heads, thus distinguishing their haircut from that of an idolater.

B. Sefer Hachinuch. An additional reason for the prohibition to remove the peyos may be suggested based on the Sefer Hachinuch’s explanation of the mitzvah of bris milah. The Chinuch explains that it is important to have a unique physical attribute that clearly identifies a person as a Jew. Unlike the previous explanation, here the focus is not on what we are NOT (idolaters), but rather on what we ARE (Jews). Indeed, the Ben Ish Chai (in his Derashos Ben Ish Chayil) refers to the peyos as the “two trustworthy witnesses that adorn us with the crown of Judaism”.

III. Who is Included in the Prohibition?

A. Talmudic Source. The Gemara (Makos 20b) states that there are two separate prohibitions of shaving off peyos. Both the one who does the shaving as well as the one who gets shaved violate independent biblical prohibitions. [Indeed, one who shaves his own head is held liable for violation of two prohibitions – see Rabbi Yosef Engel’s Asvon D’oraysa for an analysis of the phenomenon of bearing double culpability for playing both roles in a prohibited act.] The one who merely sits in the barber chair can even receive lashes for his role because he actively aids the barber by adjusting the positioning of his head when necessary to aid in the haircut. Ritva points out that although a role as a helper is not usually halachically significant (see Beitza 22a), in our case the man in the barber chair is providing very significant help.

B. What if You Don’t Help? Tosafos (Bava Metzia 10b s”v Akfi) and Ritva (Makkos 21b) both rule that while one would need to move his head in order to receive lashes for his role as a “nikaf” (one whose peyos are being cut), merely sitting in the barber chair is biblically prohibited. One would not receive lashes if he didn’t actively move his head because some action is necessary to inflict punishment on the perpetrator, but the prohibition can be violated even absent any action on the part of the perpetrator. Both the accuracy and the extent of this inactive prohibition are the subject of dispute amongst the acharonim:

  • 1. Maharam Shick (Sefer Hamitzvos 252) writes that in the view of the Rambam there is no prohibition at all if the person receiving the haircut does not move his head to accommodate the barber. The Maharam Shick proves this assertion based on a passage in Maseches Nazir (57b) where Rav Huna permitted his wife to cut off their children’s peyos (see Beis Yosef Yoreh Deah 181 who cites Rambam and Ra’avad as having ruled against Rav Huna and prohibiting a woman from shaving a child’s head). While neither the woman nor the child are included in the prohibition of shaving off the peyos, there is a general prohibition of providing a child with a biblical prohibition. Maharam Shick explains that in the view of the Rambam the child isn’t doing anything that can be labeled as a prohibition provided that he does not move his head, thereby circumventing the problem of aiding a child in a prohibited act. Even if the child were to move his head, as long as the woman does not prompt him to do so she is not violating any prohibition.
  • 2. The Darkei Teshiva (181:8) while acknowledging the prohibition of inactively receiving a haircut, raises some doubt as to how serious the prohibition is. It may be considered a violation of the full negative commandment, just absent the punishment, or it may only be part of the broader prohibition of following the ways of the non-Jews. If it were the latter, it would seem that if one were to have their entire head shaved without moving his head at all, he would not be in violation of any prohibition. However, Darkei Teshuva (ibid 6) assumes that the former approach is the more correct one, and even suggests that one may not allow a non-Jew to shave his head, even in situations where doing so would save him from significant humiliation.

C. Female Barber. While the Shulchan Aruch prohibits a woman from cutting off a man’s or even a child’s peyos, R’ Akiva Eiger suggests that the entire prohibition relates to “lifnei iver” (aiding another person in violating the torah). When the client is able to shave his own peyos but prefers to enlist the services of a barber, the barber is not in violation of the biblical prohibition of lifnei iver, but is in violation of a rabbinic prohibition to aid a sinner. R’ Akiva Eiger argues, however, that when a woman shaves a man’s peyos she cannot be in violation of aiding a sinner because had he done the shaving himself he would have violated two prohibitions (shaving and being shaved), but with the woman’s help is only in violation of a single prohibition.

D. Non-Jew Cutting a Child’s Hair. The Rama (181:5) rules that a non-Jew may shave a child’s peyos off. In this case neither the child nor the barber is obligated in the mitzvah. Pischei Teshuva (ad loc 5) raises a problem with this permissive ruling of the Rama. If the case under discussion is one where the child goes to the barber on his own it is self-evident that no prohibition is violated. After all, even if a child eats non-kosher food, adults (other than his parents) have no obligation to stop him. The child receiving a normally prohibited haircut would seem no different. If an adult asked the non-Jewish barber to cut the child’s hair in this way it would seem no different than every other case of a prohibition that a Jew asks a non-Jew to do on his behalf (amira l’akum), which is generally prohibited.

IV. Location on the Head.

One of the more complicated issues pertaining to peyos ha’rosh is determining the exact location on the head of the peyos. Halachos of this nature are normally more effectively transmitted through practice than through the written word, as the exact location is often difficult to describe without visual aid. We will outline the basic opinions as recorded in the poskim leaving room for the possibility of oral traditions to the contrary.

A. Entire Head. The gemara (Nazir 58a) states that shaving the entire head is considered to be a violation of shaving the peyos. While the idolatrous practice involved leaving hair on the top of the head, the prohibition of shaving peyos includes even shaving the entire head. This is the accepted opinion of all major Rishonim, and is codified in Shulchan Aruch. Perhaps the reason is that when one cuts off the peyos, the fact that he may also shave off the rest of his hair cannot prevent his current violation.

B. Highest Point. The location of the highest point on the head that the peyos extend is described in Shulchan Aruch (181:9) as “across from the hair on is forehead”. There are two basic opinions as to the precise location the Shulchan Aruch refers to:

  • 1. Rabbi Yisroel Belsky (Shulchan Halevi page 122) writes that he heard directly from Rav Yakov Kaminetzky that the upper limit of the peyos ha’rosh begins “at the highest point of the hairline as it arches over the ear and extends in a slightly curved line across to where the hairline of the forehead turns sharply downwards towards the sideburns. All the hair from the imaginary line that connects these two points and below comprises the peyos ha’rosh”.
  • 2. Rabbi Belsky also quotes “some rabbonim have a mesora, a tradition from their Rabbis, that the peyos do not extend above the upper cartilage of the ear (tenuch ha’ozen) at all. According to their mesorah, the imaginary line extends horizontally from the point in the hairline above the foremost part of ear almost until where the downward slope of the frontal hairline angles back to the ear.

C. Lowest Point. The lowest point of the peyos ha’rosh, while worded more clearly in the Shulchan Aruch, is subject to much debate, and clearly indicates a variance between the mimetic and written traditions. Whereas the conventional wisdom is that peyos only need to extend as low as “the bone”, the written tradition seems to suggest otherwise. (It should be noted that the discussion to follow has nothing to do with how long the hairs need to be. Rather, the issue relates to the location of the roots of hair that comprise the location of the peyos):

  • 1. The Shulchan Aruch (ibid.) very clearly writes that the peyos go down until the bottom of the ear. It would therefore seem that the sideburns must not be shaved off at any point across from the ear.
  • 2. Rabbi Binyamin Zilber (Responsa As Nidberu III:45:7) suggests that the definition of the “ear” in this regard does not include the earlobe and the peyos therefore do not have to extend to the area across from the earlobe. Rav Mayer Arik (Imrei Yosher) proves this assertion from a passage in the Gemara (Kiddushin 21b) that relates to the piercing of the ear of a Jewish slave who chooses to stay with his master beyond the allotted time. The gemara says that the piercing must be in the cartilage part of the ear, thus indicating that the earlobe which does not have any cartilage is not halachically considered part of the ear. When the Shulchan Aruch rules that the peyos should extend to the “bottom of the ear”, it refers to the halachic definition of the ear, which excludes the earlobe.
  • 3. Rabbi Aryeh Tzvi Frimmer (Responsa Eretz Tzvi #3) writes that the endpoint of the peyos harosh is where the hair on the head ends and the beard begins. The most logical place to assume that this happens is about halfway down the ear. This can best be demonstrated by looking at somebody who has different color hair on his head and in his beard. The location on his head where the color changes is the end of the peyos ha’rosh. Rabbi Belsky points out that the consistency of the hair on the head is different than the consistency of the hair in the beard. Where the consistency changes is the end of the peyos ha’rosh. Rabbi Frimmer notes that these measurements do not take into account the length of each individual hair but refer to roots located in this area.

D. Width.

  • 1. The Smag (mitzvas lo sa’ase 57 – see Bach and Darchei Moshe) rules that one may not thin out the area of the peyos. One must maintain the entire width of the area with hair. In fact, R’ Akiva Eiger (Gilyon Hashas Shevuos 2b) rules that one may not even comb his peyos lest he pull out some hairs. Removal of any hairs in that area would violate the prohibition of shaving the peyos. Pischei Teshuva (ibid:3) cites the Chasam Sofer who disagrees with R’ Akiva Eiger and permits combing the peyos because unintentional removal of loose strands cannot be equated with intentional removal of hair from the peyos area. Indeed, the Chasam Sofer writes that he had never seen the older generation of rabbis refrain from combing their peyos. (For further discussion of the point of contention between R’ Akiva Eiger and the Chasam Sofer see Rabbi Moshe Shternbuch’s Teshuvos v’Hanhagos I:460).
  • 2. The Rambam (Hilchos Avoda Zara 12:6) rules that one only has to leave forty hairs across the width of the peyos area, clearly indicating that it is permissible to thin out sideburns.

3. As a matter of halacha the Shulchan Aruch (181:9) writes that one may not “touch” the area where the peyos grow, strongly indicating that the ruling of the Smag is halachically normative. It should be noted, however, that even in the view of the Smag stray hairs that may grow across from the area of the peyos are not included in the prohibition. Rashi (Makos 20a) seems to define peyos as the hair that connects the facial hair to the hair on one’s head. Stray hairs clearly do not serve that purpose. Furthermore, if one were to include stray hairs in the prohibition of removing peyos, one would also have to conclude that hairs all across the front of one’s face, including eyebrow hairs, are included in the prohibition, which would obviously be an absurd conclusion.

based on an essay by Rabbi Aryeh Lebowitz

I. Introduction.

One of the clearly distinguishable physical characteristics of the Torah-observant Jewish male is the “side locks” that grow on either side of his head. The Torah (Vayikra 19:27) explicitly prohibits one from “rounding off the corners” of the head. The prohibition clearly refers to certain types of haircuts that are considered off limits for Jewish males. The exact details of the prohibition to “round off the head” are somewhat complicated and the basic requirements are often confused for stringencies and vice versa. We are attempting to outline the requirement of growing “peyos” and examine the sources for the variance of opinion and practice under Jewish law.

II. Reasons for the Mitzvah.

A. Sefer Hachinuch (Mitzvah 181) explains that the reason for the prohibition of shaving off the peyos is to keep us away from avodah zarah. Since the idol worshipers used to cut off the hair on the sides of their heads while leaving the hair on top to grow, we are required to maintain a physical appearance that distinguishes us from idol worshipers. In fact, the Tur (Yoreh Deah 181) cites the Rambam as having explained the mitzvah in a similar manner. The Tur, however, criticizes the need to provide any reason at all for the mitzvah, considering that all mitzvos, whether we understand them or not, are an expression of the will of G-d.

1. The leading Acharonim have debated both the basis for and content of the Tur’s critique of the Rambam. After all, the idea of explaining mitzvos rationally is not unique to the Rambam and is widely accepted as a proper way to motivate increased adherence to mitzvos, even as we know that we will never fully and thoroughly understand any mitzvah or its reasons. In fact, the Beis Yosef (ad. loc.) points out that the Rambam himself stresses the need to perform mitzvos regardless of our understanding of them. It is difficult to understand how the Tur can accuse the Rambam of espousing a philosophy of religion that limits itself to human rational faculties. Additionally, Beis Yosef points out, the explanation offered by the Rambam for this particular mitzvah is hardly the Rambam’s own innovation. The juxtaposition of the prohibition of cutting the peyos with other prohibitions relating to idolatry (tattoos, cutting the skin, divining) strongly suggest that peyos are also related to protection from idolatrous practices. In light of the difficulties with the Tur’s critique of the Rambam, a variety of explanations of the precise point of dispute between the Tur and the Rambam have been suggested:

  • a. The Darchei Moshe (ad. loc.) suggests that the Tur never meant to accuse the Rambam of rejecting irrational elements of our religion. He merely emphasized that even when the Rambam’s reason for growing peyos does not apply (e.g. if one can creatively cut his hair in a way that does not include peyos but also does not resemble idolaters) the prohibition would still apply.
  • b. The Taz (Yoreh Deah 181:1) suggests that if the reason for the prohibition relates to idolatrous practices, one may be permitted to compromise on the halacha in situations that involve maintaining peace with the government (see Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 172:2). The Tur’s primary contention is that there should be no dispensation for shalom malchus as there is for the conventional prohibition of idolatrous practices.
  • c. Rabbi Reuvein Marogliyos, in his notes to Sheilos U’teshuvots Min Ha’shamayim, questions the reason offered by the Sefer Hachinuch and the Rambam. If the purpose of the mitzvah were to keep us away from idolatrous practices, one would imagine that the prohibition would be strongest when serving G-d in the Beis Hamikdash. Yet, we find the exact opposite to be true. We allow the Leviyim at the commencement of their service, and the nazir at the conclusion of his nezirus to shave off all of their hair (including the peyos). Rabbi Margoliyos explains that both the case of the Levi and Nazir include inherent reminders that the intention is purely for the sake of Heaven and is not sullied by any idolatrous intentions. The leviyim are only supposed to shave their heads as they commence their avodah where it is self-evident that they are going to be serving G-d. Once they have begun their avodah, they are no longer permitted to shave their heads. As for the nazir, the fact that he burns his hair as part of a sacrifice to Hashem clearly demonstrates that there are no idolatrous intentions. Also, neither the Levi nor the Nazir would leave any hair on the top of their heads, thus distinguishing their haircut from that of an idolater.

B. Sefer Hachinuch. An additional reason for the prohibition to remove the peyos may be suggested based on the Sefer Hachinuch’s explanation of the mitzvah of bris milah. The Chinuch explains that it is important to have a unique physical attribute that clearly identifies a person as a Jew. Unlike the previous explanation, here the focus is not on what we are NOT (idolaters), but rather on what we ARE (Jews). Indeed, the Ben Ish Chai (in his Derashos Ben Ish Chayil) refers to the peyos as the “two trustworthy witnesses that adorn us with the crown of Judaism”.

III. Who is Included in the Prohibition?

A. Talmudic Source. The Gemara (Makos 20b) states that there are two separate prohibitions of shaving off peyos. Both the one who does the shaving as well as the one who gets shaved violate independent biblical prohibitions. [Indeed, one who shaves his own head is held liable for violation of two prohibitions – see Rabbi Yosef Engel’s Asvon D’oraysa for an analysis of the phenomenon of bearing double culpability for playing both roles in a prohibited act.] The one who merely sits in the barber chair can even receive lashes for his role because he actively aids the barber by adjusting the positioning of his head when necessary to aid in the haircut. Ritva points out that although a role as a helper is not usually halachically significant (see Beitza 22a), in our case the man in the barber chair is providing very significant help.

B. What if You Don’t Help? Tosafos (Bava Metzia 10b s”v Akfi) and Ritva (Makkos 21b) both rule that while one would need to move his head in order to receive lashes for his role as a “nikaf” (one whose peyos are being cut), merely sitting in the barber chair is biblically prohibited. One would not receive lashes if he didn’t actively move his head because some action is necessary to inflict punishment on the perpetrator, but the prohibition can be violated even absent any action on the part of the perpetrator. Both the accuracy and the extent of this inactive prohibition are the subject of dispute amongst the acharonim:

  • 1. Maharam Shick (Sefer Hamitzvos 252) writes that in the view of the Rambam there is no prohibition at all if the person receiving the haircut does not move his head to accommodate the barber. The Maharam Shick proves this assertion based on a passage in Maseches Nazir (57b) where Rav Huna permitted his wife to cut off their children’s peyos (see Beis Yosef Yoreh Deah 181 who cites Rambam and Ra’avad as having ruled against Rav Huna and prohibiting a woman from shaving a child’s head). While neither the woman nor the child are included in the prohibition of shaving off the peyos, there is a general prohibition of providing a child with a biblical prohibition. Maharam Shick explains that in the view of the Rambam the child isn’t doing anything that can be labeled as a prohibition provided that he does not move his head, thereby circumventing the problem of aiding a child in a prohibited act. Even if the child were to move his head, as long as the woman does not prompt him to do so she is not violating any prohibition.
  • 2. The Darkei Teshiva (181:8) while acknowledging the prohibition of inactively receiving a haircut, raises some doubt as to how serious the prohibition is. It may be considered a violation of the full negative commandment, just absent the punishment, or it may only be part of the broader prohibition of following the ways of the non-Jews. If it were the latter, it would seem that if one were to have their entire head shaved without moving his head at all, he would not be in violation of any prohibition. However, Darkei Teshuva (ibid 6) assumes that the former approach is the more correct one, and even suggests that one may not allow a non-Jew to shave his head, even in situations where doing so would save him from significant humiliation.

C. Female Barber. While the Shulchan Aruch prohibits a woman from cutting off a man’s or even a child’s peyos, R’ Akiva Eiger suggests that the entire prohibition relates to “lifnei iver” (aiding another person in violating the torah). When the client is able to shave his own peyos but prefers to enlist the services of a barber, the barber is not in violation of the biblical prohibition of lifnei iver, but is in violation of a rabbinic prohibition to aid a sinner. R’ Akiva Eiger argues, however, that when a woman shaves a man’s peyos she cannot be in violation of aiding a sinner because had he done the shaving himself he would have violated two prohibitions (shaving and being shaved), but with the woman’s help is only in violation of a single prohibition.

D. Non-Jew Cutting a Child’s Hair. The Rama (181:5) rules that a non-Jew may shave a child’s peyos off. In this case neither the child nor the barber is obligated in the mitzvah. Pischei Teshuva (ad loc 5) raises a problem with this permissive ruling of the Rama. If the case under discussion is one where the child goes to the barber on his own it is self-evident that no prohibition is violated. After all, even if a child eats non-kosher food, adults (other than his parents) have no obligation to stop him. The child receiving a normally prohibited haircut would seem no different. If an adult asked the non-Jewish barber to cut the child’s hair in this way it would seem no different than every other case of a prohibition that a Jew asks a non-Jew to do on his behalf (amira l’akum), which is generally prohibited.

IV. Location on the Head.

One of the more complicated issues pertaining to peyos ha’rosh is determining the exact location on the head of the peyos. Halachos of this nature are normally more effectively transmitted through practice than through the written word, as the exact location is often difficult to describe without visual aid. We will outline the basic opinions as recorded in the poskim leaving room for the possibility of oral traditions to the contrary.

A. Entire Head. The gemara (Nazir 58a) states that shaving the entire head is considered to be a violation of shaving the peyos. While the idolatrous practice involved leaving hair on the top of the head, the prohibition of shaving peyos includes even shaving the entire head. This is the accepted opinion of all major Rishonim, and is codified in Shulchan Aruch. Perhaps the reason is that when one cuts off the peyos, the fact that he may also shave off the rest of his hair cannot prevent his current violation.

B. Highest Point. The location of the highest point on the head that the peyos extend is described in Shulchan Aruch (181:9) as “across from the hair on is forehead”. There are two basic opinions as to the precise location the Shulchan Aruch refers to:

  • 1. Rabbi Yisroel Belsky (Shulchan Halevi page 122) writes that he heard directly from Rav Yakov Kaminetzky that the upper limit of the peyos ha’rosh begins “at the highest point of the hairline as it arches over the ear and extends in a slightly curved line across to where the hairline of the forehead turns sharply downwards towards the sideburns. All the hair from the imaginary line that connects these two points and below comprises the peyos ha’rosh”.
  • 2. Rabbi Belsky also quotes “some rabbonim have a mesora, a tradition from their Rabbis, that the peyos do not extend above the upper cartilage of the ear (tenuch ha’ozen) at all. According to their mesorah, the imaginary line extends horizontally from the point in the hairline above the foremost part of ear almost until where the downward slope of the frontal hairline angles back to the ear.

C. Lowest Point. The lowest point of the peyos ha’rosh, while worded more clearly in the Shulchan Aruch, is subject to much debate, and clearly indicates a variance between the mimetic and written traditions. Whereas the conventional wisdom is that peyos only need to extend as low as “the bone”, the written tradition seems to suggest otherwise. (It should be noted that the discussion to follow has nothing to do with how long the hairs need to be. Rather, the issue relates to the location of the roots of hair that comprise the location of the peyos):

  • 1. The Shulchan Aruch (ibid.) very clearly writes that the peyos go down until the bottom of the ear. It would therefore seem that the sideburns must not be shaved off at any point across from the ear.
  • 2. Rabbi Binyamin Zilber (Responsa As Nidberu III:45:7) suggests that the definition of the “ear” in this regard does not include the earlobe and the peyos therefore do not have to extend to the area across from the earlobe. Rav Mayer Arik (Imrei Yosher) proves this assertion from a passage in the Gemara (Kiddushin 21b) that relates to the piercing of the ear of a Jewish slave who chooses to stay with his master beyond the allotted time. The gemara says that the piercing must be in the cartilage part of the ear, thus indicating that the earlobe which does not have any cartilage is not halachically considered part of the ear. When the Shulchan Aruch rules that the peyos should extend to the “bottom of the ear”, it refers to the halachic definition of the ear, which excludes the earlobe.
  • 3. Rabbi Aryeh Tzvi Frimmer (Responsa Eretz Tzvi #3) writes that the endpoint of the peyos harosh is where the hair on the head ends and the beard begins. The most logical place to assume that this happens is about halfway down the ear. This can best be demonstrated by looking at somebody who has different color hair on his head and in his beard. The location on his head where the color changes is the end of the peyos ha’rosh. Rabbi Belsky points out that the consistency of the hair on the head is different than the consistency of the hair in the beard. Where the consistency changes is the end of the peyos ha’rosh. Rabbi Frimmer notes that these measurements do not take into account the length of each individual hair but refer to roots located in this area.

D. Width.

  • 1. The Smag (mitzvas lo sa’ase 57 – see Bach and Darchei Moshe) rules that one may not thin out the area of the peyos. One must maintain the entire width of the area with hair. In fact, R’ Akiva Eiger (Gilyon Hashas Shevuos 2b) rules that one may not even comb his peyos lest he pull out some hairs. Removal of any hairs in that area would violate the prohibition of shaving the peyos. Pischei Teshuva (ibid:3) cites the Chasam Sofer who disagrees with R’ Akiva Eiger and permits combing the peyos because unintentional removal of loose strands cannot be equated with intentional removal of hair from the peyos area. Indeed, the Chasam Sofer writes that he had never seen the older generation of rabbis refrain from combing their peyos. (For further discussion of the point of contention between R’ Akiva Eiger and the Chasam Sofer see Rabbi Moshe Shternbuch’s Teshuvos v’Hanhagos I:460).
  • 2. The Rambam (Hilchos Avoda Zara 12:6) rules that one only has to leave forty hairs across the width of the peyos area, clearly indicating that it is permissible to thin out sideburns.

3. As a matter of halacha the Shulchan Aruch (181:9) writes that one may not “touch” the area where the peyos grow, strongly indicating that the ruling of the Smag is halachically normative. It should be noted, however, that even in the view of the Smag stray hairs that may grow across from the area of the peyos are not included in the prohibition. Rashi (Makos 20a) seems to define peyos as the hair that connects the facial hair to the hair on one’s head. Stray hairs clearly do not serve that purpose. Furthermore, if one were to include stray hairs in the prohibition of removing peyos, one would also have to conclude that hairs all across the front of one’s face, including eyebrow hairs, are included in the prohibition, which would obviously be an absurd conclusion.

PDF Preview
View The Full Article (PDF)
Parsha Pages | May 05, 2024