Gemara

24b (Mishnah - R. Yosi ben ha'Meshulam): One who slaughters a Bechor uproots hair to make room for Shechitah, using a large chopping knife.

(Rav): It is permitted even on Yom Tov (because it is a Davar she'Eino Miskaven, i.e. he does not intend to uproot hair, only to clear it away).

Question: Rav rules like R. Yehudah (who forbids Davar she'Eino Miskaven)!

Answer (and retraction): Rather, Rav permits on Yom Tov because it is an

abnormal way of uprooting something from where it grows.

Question: Uprooting is considered shearing!

(Beraisa): If (b'Shogeg) one plucked a feather from a bird's wing, he brings a Chatas.

(Reish Lakish): He is liable due to (a derivative of the Av Melachah of) Gozez (shearing).

Answer: One is liable for plucking from a wing, for this is normal.

Shabbos 94b (Mishnah - R. Eliezer): One is liable for cutting his fingernails one on the other, or with his teeth.

Chachamim forbid only mid'Rabanan.

(R. Elazar): They argue about cutting by hand. All are Mechayev for cutting with a Kli.

One might have thought that Chachamim exempt even with a Kli, and the Mishnah teaches the extremity of R. Eliezer, who is Mechayev even by hand. R. Elazar teaches that this is not so.

(R. Elazar): They argue about cutting one's own nails. All exempt for cutting another's.

One might have thought that R. Eliezer obligates even for cutting another's, and the Mishnah teaches the extremity of Chachamim, who exempt even for his own. R. Elazar teaches that this is not so.

(Beraisa - R. Shimon ben Elazar): If a fingernail or surrounding strands of skin are mostly detached, one may remove them by hand. If one removed them with a Kli, he is Chayav Chatas.

Objection: If one is Chayav Chatas for removing something with a Kli, surely it is not permitted by hand!

Correction: Rather, if they are mostly detached, one may remove them by hand. One may not use a Kli. One is exempt if he did;

If the majority is not detached, one may not remove them by hand. If one removed them with a Kli he is Chayav Chatas.

(Rabah bar bar Chanah): It is permitted (by hand) only if they separated l'Ma'alah (above), and pain him.

Eruvin 103a (Mishnah #1): (On Shabbos) one may cut off a wart in the Mikdash, but not outside the Mikdash.

Contradiction (Mishnah #2): (When Erev Pesach is on Shabbos,) cutting off a wart do not override (Shabbos);

R. Eliezer says, it overrides Shabbos.

Resolution #1: Both Mishnayos discuss moist warts. Mishnah #1 permits cutting it off by hand, and Mishnah #2 forbids cutting it with a Keli.

Resolution #2: Both discuss cutting it off by hand. Mishnah #1 permits a dry wart in the Mikdash, and Mishnah #2 forbids a wet wart.

The first opinion disagrees. He permits cutting a dry wart even with a Kli, because it crumbles (it does not resemble Melachah).

103b (Beraisa): If there is a wart on a Kohen, another Kohen tears it off with his teeth.

Inferences: It must be done by another Kohen, but not the Ba'al Mum himself. It must be done using the teeth, but not using a Keli.

Suggestion: This is like Chachamim (who exempt one who cuts his own fingernails. The same applies to warts.) They discuss removing the wart in the Mikdash.

Rejection: Chachamim hold that biting off a wart (even one's own) is Shevus (so it is permitted in the Mikdash). They would not require a different Kohen to do it!

Rather, it is like R. Eliezer. He is Mechayev one who bites off his own wart;

Even though he permits Melachah for Machshirim, one must deviate as much as possible. (Biting off another's wart is only Shevus.)

Nidah 13a: Shmuel permitted Rav Yehudah to hold the Ever from the crown and below, like R. Avahu taught.

Rishonim

Rambam (Hilchos Shabbos 9:8): If one cuts a wart from his skin with his hand or a Kli, he is exempt, whether he cut for himself or for another.

Rambam (9): If a fingernail or surrounding strands of skin are mostly detached, if this is they separated towards Ma'alah and pain him he may remove them by hand, but not with a Kli. If one removed them with a Kli, he is exempt. If they are not paining him he may not remove them even by hand. If the majority did not separate, even if they are paining him he may remove them by hand, and if he removed them with a Kli he is Chayav Chatas.

Magid Mishneh: Why did the Rambam mention a Kli? Eruvin 103b equates cutting a wart to cutting fingernails, and one is liable with a Kli. This requires investigation.

Gra (on OC 340:2): The Rambam (Hilchos Korban Pesach 1:18) rules like the opinion that exempts for cutting a dry wart even with a Kli, and distinguishes between with a Kli and by hand. We equate warts to fingernails, for which one is liable using a Kli.

Rivash (394): They were Gozez in the Mishkan not for the sake of the wool or hair, rather, only for the sake of the skin. They sheared the skins of the Tachash. Therefore, cutting hair or fingernails is Melachah she'Tzerichah l'Gufah (one benefits from the Melachah; alternatively, it was done for a similar purpose in the Mishkan) and he is liable, even if one does not need the hair. One who digs a hole because he needs a hole is liable, even if he does not need the earth. Therefore, one may not comb hair, for it is a Pesik Reishei (an inevitable consequence), even according to the Aruch (who permits a Pesik Reishei that one does not desire).

Poskim

Shulchan Aruch (OC 328:31): If a fingernail detached and thin strands of skin around the nail, if the majority separated l'Ma'alah (above) and they are paining him, he may remove them by hand. If he does so with a Kli, he is exempt but it is forbidden. If the majority did not separate, if he removes them by hand he is exempt but it is forbidden. If he does so with a Kli, he is Chayav Chatas.

Magen Avraham (35): He is Chayav Chatas for Gozez.

Mishbetzos Zahav (23): The Rambam rules like R. Yehudah. However, the Shulchan Aruch (334:27) rules like R. Shimon, who exempts Melachah she'Einah Tzerichah l'Gufah. If so, why is one Chayav Chatas? He does not need the strands he cuts off! Even if the majority separated and he is in pain, one may not cut it with a Kli.

Mishnah Berurah (95): The Pri Megadim was unsure what 'majority' refers to regarding strands of skin. Perhaps whatever it is normal for people to peel off, if the majority was peeled, it is as if it was detached.

Mishnah Berurah (96): Since the majority detached, they are close to coming off and it is as if they are detached, so Chachamim were not stringent in a situation of pain, if one removes them through a Shinuy. One must be careful not to draw blood.

Shulchan Aruch (ibid.): Rashi explains that 'l'Ma'alah' means towards the fingertips. R. Tam explains that it means towards the body. One must be concerned for both opinions.

Gra: In Bechoros 45a, the Beraisa uses 'l'Ma'alah' to mean towards the fingernails, the opposite of its meaning in the Mishnah (Rashi DH l'Ma'alah). (Note: perhaps this is why the Bach (45a:2) deletes l'Ma'alah' from the text.) See Nidah 13a.

Note: Surely in Nidah 'below' means towards the end, for the Gemara gives one law for 'from the crown and below.' Surely, the crown is like the end!

Mishnah Berurah (99): Therefore, even if the majority separated, one may not cut them off, even by hand.

Shulchan Aruch (340:2): One may not cut a wart from his body, with his hand or a Kli, whether for himself or for another.

Magen Avraham (3): One is liable for cutting a moist wart with a Kli.

Mishnah Berurah (6): Even if it is dry and destined to eventually crumble by itself, it is forbidden. One is liable only if it is moist, and he used a Kli. Then, it is Gozez.

Mishnah Berurah (7): Likewise, one may not cut strands of skin that partially separated from his hand or any other place.

Mishnah Berurah (8): With the teeth is like by hand.

Taz (336:10): One must be careful not to detach from his skin on his hand or other places, for this is like attached to the ground. Sanhedrin 2a connotes like this, that man is like land.

Bi'ur Halachah (DH Yabeles): The Taz' law is correct, like it says in 328:31. Even though there it discusses strands of fingernails, according to Rashi surely the same applies when some of the skin separated. The Rambam explicitly brings the law regarding strands of skin. The Taz says that this is because man is like land. This implies that the Isur is due to uprooting something from where it grows. Rashi in Eruvin (DH Im) connotes that it is due to Gozez. Also the Rambam taught this law with laws of Gozez. Also the Magen Avraham (328:35) says so. He is liable when he uses a Kli, which is the way of Gozez. By hand, he is exempt but it is forbidden. One cannot say that he is liable for uprooting something from where it grows, since we concluded in Bechoros that by hand is not a skilled way of uprooting. If he uses a Kli, he is liable due to Gozez, like we say about one who takes the wings off a bird. Also, in the conclusion in Bechoros, if something is normally detached by hand, one is liable due to Gozez. If so, if there are strands dangling from the lips and the majority did not separate, perhaps one who detaches them is Chayav Chatas. This is even if he does so by hand, for this is normal. If so, even if the majority separated, those who permit in Siman 328 to detach (thin strands around the nail) when they pain him, here it is forbidden. Since it is normal with the hand, this is like with a Kli.

Magen Avraham (303:22): One who cuts fingernails is liable for Gozez, even though he does not need what he cuts, just like for the Mishkan they sheared the skins of the Tachash, even though they did not need the wool.

Note: Kaf ha'Chayim (336:68) rules like the Taz.

Yabi'a Omer (4 OC 30:18): Tal Oros (25b) rejected the Taz. Ketzirah (harvesting) applies only to what truly grows from the ground, but not to people. The Rashba (Shabbos 107b) says so in the name of the Ramban. However, Maharam me'Rotenburg (319) says like the Taz.

Kaf ha'Chayim (1,16): The Rambam rules like R. Yehudah, who is Mechayev for Melachah she'Einah Tzerichah l'Gufah, so one is liable even if he does not need what he cuts off. Several Acharonim say that the Tur and Shulchan Aruch rule like the Rivash, who obligates even though he does not need what he cuts (even though he rules like R. Shimon).