The term giluach (shaving or haircutting) and its cognates appear some 23 times in the Bible, thirteen of which are in the Pentateuch. The plurality of these instances is in the passages concerning the metzora (roughly, “leper”) and the Nazirite, whose respective completion ceremonies require ritual hair removal by shaving (Lev. 14:8-9, Num. 6:9, 6:18-19). In this essay, we will explore various Hebrew roots related to the act of haircutting – giluach, gizah, galav, and sapar – and examine their etymologies and to identify how they differ from one another.
Let’s begin with the term giluach, whose root is gimmel-lamed-chet. Predicated on the interchangeability of the letters hey, ayin, and chet, Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch (to Genesis 9:21) sees a common theme among words derived from the roots gimmel-lamed-hey (gilui, “reveal”), gimmel-lamed-ayin (gala, “open”), and gimmel-lamed-chet (giluach, “shaving”). He understands that they all refer back to “exposing” something and bringing something new to the forefront. Thus, in Rabbi Hirsch’s understanding, the word giluach primarily refers to cutting hair as a means of exposing the surface of one’s skin previously covered by hair. This idea bears a close resemblance to Rabbi Hirsch’s understanding of how the word ta’ar (razor) derives from the root ayin–reish–hay (laying bare, exposing), as I discussed in a previous essay (“Razor’s Edge,” May 2018).
Interestingly, the word galach came to mean “[Christian] priest” in Medieval Hebrew and Yiddish, because such priests typically shaved their heads. As far as I know, Rashi was the first to use this term in this way (see my earlier essay, “Holy Priests vs. Unholy Priests,” Dec. 2019).
Another Biblical term for “cutting hair” is gizah/gezizah (verb form: gozez), whose root is gimmel–zayin–zayin or gimmel–zayin. In his work Yeriot Shelomo, Rabbi Shlomo Pappenheim of Breslau (1740-1814) writes that both giluach and gizah refer to “haircutting,” but the difference between these terms lies in whose hair is cut. He explains that giluach in the Bible always refers to cutting a person’s hair, while gizah typically refers to cutting an animal’s hair (wool). Thus, for example, when the Bible refers to Joseph getting a haircut before meeting the Pharaoh (Genesis 41:14), or shaving the metzora as part of his purification process (Leviticus 14:9), or a Nazirite as part of his completion ceremony (Numbers 6:18), or the prohibition of shaving one’s beard (Leviticus 21:5), the verses use the word giluach. On the other hand, when Judah went to shear his sheep (Genesis 31:19 and when the Torah commands presenting one’s animal’s first shearing to a Kohen (Deuteronomy 18:4), the word used in these instances is gizah. That said, Rabbi Pappenheim admits that gizah can also refer to a human haircut, albeit in a borrowed sense (for example, see Job 1:20).
In his work Cheshek Shlomo, Rabbi Pappenheim takes a different approach in differentiating between giluach and gizah. There, he explains that giluach refers to a cut that severs the hair as close as possible to the skin. In English, we call this “a close shave.” The term gizah, in contrast, refers to cutting in a way that leaves remnants of that which is cut still in place – stubble, as it were. In fact, Rabbi Pappenheim sees the core meaning of the root gimmel–zayin as shaving/trimming something in a way that leaves some parts attached and some parts detached. Other words derived from this root include geiz, the grass remaining after trimming (Psalms 72:6); gozez, the act of shearing wool from sheep (Genesis 38:12, 31:19); gazam, a type of grasshopper which eats some produce and leaves over the rest; geza, a tree with a truncated top; and gazit, hewn stone (i.e. some parts of the stone are shaved down while the rest of the stone remains intact).
Another Hebrew root related to haircutting is gimmel–lamed–bet, but derivatives of this root only appear once in the Bible, making it a hapax legomenon. When G-d told the prophet Ezekiel to get a haircut, He said: “Take for yourself a sharp sword, a razor of a galav shall you take for yourself, and you shall pass over your head and over your beard” (Ezekiel 5:1). Rabbi David Kimchi (1160-1235), also known as the Radak, explains that “a razor of a galav” refers to an especially sharp razor that was used by barbers to quickly cut people’s hair. He thus explains that galav means “barber.”
Targum pseudo-Jonathan (to Leviticus 19:27, Numbers 6:19) uses variations of galav when rendering cognates of the Hebrew giluach into Aramaic, and again (to Numbers 8:7) uses galav as a translation of the Hebrew word ta’ar (razor). Elsewhere, Targum (to Joshua 5:2, Jeremiah 48:37, see also Bereishit Rabbah §31:8) again uses variants of galav in this context of razors and cutting. All of this suggests that perhaps galav is an Aramaic word. However, Rashi and Mahari Kara (to Ezekiel 5:1) explain that galav actually comes from Greek. After much searching, I have not found any Greek word which fits this description, but I did find that Dr. Alexander Kohut (1842-1894) suggests amending Rashi to refer to Arabic, instead of Greek. That said, Dr. Chaim Tawil notes that galav is clearly a loanword from the Akkadian gallabu (barber).
While the term sapar does not appear in the Bible, in Modern Hebrew sapar means “barber” and tisporet means “haircut.” But where does this word come from?
If you look closely at Targum Oneklos and Targum Jonathan, you will notice an inconsistency in how they render the Hebrew giluach into the Aramaic. Sometimes, they translate giluach into sapar; and sometimes, they simply leave the verb in its original Hebrew form as a cognate of giluach. Rabbi Eliyahu HaBachur (1469-1549) in Meturgaman notes this inconsistency and also points out that the Targumic term maspar for “razor” (see Targum to Num. 6:5, Jud. 13:5) is also derived from this root. Interestingly, Targum Neofiti is more consistent than the other Targumim in always rendering giluach as sapar.
Cognates of sapar also appear in the Mishnah, like when codifying the law that the Kohanim who served in the Temple (anshei mishmar) or the non-Kohanim who represented the entire nation at the Temple (anshei ma’amad) were not allowed to get a haircut (l’saper) during the week that they officiated, but beforehand (Taanit 2:7). The Mishnah also offers several prohibitions related to haircuts: it is forbidden to get a haircut during the week of Tisha B’Av (Taanit 4:7), to see a Jewish king while he is getting a haircut (Sanhedrin 2:5), and to get a haircut from a non-Jew in certain circumstances (Avodah Zarah 2:2). In all of these cases, the Mishnah uses forms of the word sapar to refer to “haircutting.” The Mishnah also uses the term sapar as a “barber” (Kilayim 9:3, Sheviit 8:5, Shabbat 1:2, Pesachim 4:6, Moed Katan 3:2, Keilim 13:1, 24:5), misperet as a “razor” (Keilim 13:1, 16:8), and misparayim as “a pair of scissors” (Keilim 13:1). Either way, the term sapar clearly entered the Jewish lexicon from the Mishnah and the Targumim.
Dr. Chaim Tawil sees the etymological forebear of this term in the Neo-Babylonian word sirpu/sirapu (shears or scissors), which shares the same consonants as sapar, although in a metathesized order. Interestingly, though, Tawil notes that this Neo-Babylonian term was used specifically for shearing animals, while the Hebrew/Aramaic sapar was used for cutting human hair, cutting animal wool, and even cutting vegetables (see Tosefta Beitzah 3:19, Beitzah 34a, and Keilim 3:3). Tawil also notes that metathesis of a root’s consonants is especially prevalent when the letter reish is involved.
Earlier, we noted an inconsistency in the Targumim over whether they render the Hebrew giluach as sapar or leave it as it. Rabbi David Golumb in Targumna (to Lev. 14:9) attempts to reconcile this contradiction by explaining that when it comes to Joseph’s haircut in anticipation of meeting the Pharaoh, Onkelos translates giluach as sapar because in Egypt they typically used scissors (misparayim) to give haircuts. But when the Torah says that a metzora must undergo giluach, Onkelos leaves the word giluach as is, because the law is that the metzora must be shaven “like a gourd” (Sotah 16a). This means that the metzora requires a very smooth and close shave – the sort which cannot be achieved with scissors, but rather requires a razor. In order to accentuate that misparayim is not good enough, Onkelos did not translate the metzora’s giluach into a cognate of sapar, like he did with Joseph’s giluach.
