Gemara

(Mishnah - R. Elazar and R. Shimon): The Garanos for Ma'aser Behemah are Nisan 1, Sivan 1 and Elul 29.

Question: Why did they use 29 Elul (and not 1 Tishrei)?

Answer: Tishrei 1 is Yom Tov, and they cannot do it on Yom Tov, so they do it the day before.

Bechoros 58a: One may not tithe on Yom Tov, for one puts red dye on the 10th.

Shabbos 75a (Shmuel): One liable for Shechitah for killing;

(Rav): He is liable even for dyeing.

Rav: I will explain myself, lest people laugh at me! He wants the place of Shechitah to be bloodstained, so people will see [that it was slaughtered today] and come to buy.

94b (Mishnah - R. Eliezer): One is liable for coloring eyes and Pokeses (fixing the hair with a comb or fingers. Alternatively, applying a mudpack.)

Chachamim forbid only mid'Rabanan.

(R. Avin citing R. Yosi b'Rebbi Chanina): One is liable for coloring eyes due to writing. One is liable for Pokeses due to spinning.

Objection (Rabanan): This is not the normal way to write or spin!

95a (R. Avahu citing R. Yosi b'Rebbi Chanina): One is liable for coloring eyes due to dyeing. One is liable for Pokeses due to Boneh.

Objection (Rabanan): Is this the normal way to build?!

Answer: Yes!

(R. Shimon ben Menasiyah): "Va'Yiven Hash-m Elokim Es ha'Tzela" - Hash-m braided Chavah's hair and brought her to Adam;

Braiding is called 'Binyan' in the language of certain islands.

(Beraisa - R. Shimon ben Elazar): If a woman colored her own eyes or was Pokeses herself, she is exempt. If she did so for another woman, she is liable.

R. Shimon ben Elazar cited R. Eliezer to forbid a woman to put rouge on her face, due to dyeing.

Rishonim

Rambam (Hilchos Shabbos 11:1): One who slaughters is liable. One who kills in any way is liable for a Toladah of Shochet.

Lechem Mishneh: Why does the Rambam rule like Shmuel? The Halachah follows Rav against Shmuel regarding Isurim! Perhaps it is because Rav's reason is weak. Rav himself said 'I will explain myself, lest people laugh at me.'

Merkeves ha'Mishneh: I say that the Rambam holds that if one intends to color the neck, all agree that he is liable. They argue about one who does not intend. It is not a Pesik Reishei (an inevitable consequence), for there can be a Shechitah without blood. Rav holds like R. Yehudah, who obligates for Davar she'Eino Miskaven. The Halachah does not follow him. I question whether one is liable even if he intends, for the color does not last.

Shevet ha'Levi (9:91): The Acharonim say that the Rambam exempts dyeing when the matter does not last, just like he rules like Chachamim, who exempt for rouge. They learn from writing, and require a matter that lasts. Rav must hold like R. Shimon ben Elazar.

Rambam (22:23): Dyeing is an Av Melachah. Therefore, a woman may not put rouge on her face, for this is like dyeing.

Rambam (26): One may not be Pokes the hair of the head, for this is like Boneh.

Tosfos (Mo'ed Katan 9b DH Pokeses): Riva explains that Pokeses is putting thin strips of dough on the face to redden the skin. This is spinning. The Yerushalmi calls it dyeing, for it reddens the skin. Also Boneh applies to fixing a woman, like it says in Shabbos.

Poskim

Shulchan Aruch (OC 303:25): A woman may not put rouge on her face, due to dyeing.

Beis Yosef (DH u'Mah): The Halachah follows Chachamim, who exempt. The Rambam rules like this. However, it seems that Semag is Mechayev, for he wrote that one is liable only if he wanted the dyeing.

Magen Avraham (19): Since it is normal, this is called dyeing. This is not so for a man, like I wrote below (320:25). In any case, it is only mid'Rabanan.

Mishnah Berurah (79): The Tosefta forbids her to clean her face with a garment that has rouge. This connotes that even though she does not intend to color, it is a Pesik Reishei. Since it is normal for a woman to beautify herself through coloring her face, this looks like dyeing. A man does not normally do so, so it is not called dyeing. One may eat berries and other fruits that color, even though they color his hands and face at the time of eating. In any case, putting on a woman's face is forbidden only mid'Rabanan. Mid'Oraisa, dyeing does not apply human skin.

Kaf ha'Chayim (114): It is normal to paint eyes even for men.

Bi'ur Halachah (DH Mishum): Eliyahu Rabah brings Rishonim who rule like R. Eliezer, that one is Chayav Chatas for Pokeses or painting eyes. He adds that this is only to herself, but all agree that she is liable for doing so to another woman. He holds that R. Shimon ben Elazar holds like Rabanan. Eliyahu Rabah erred. R. Shimon ben Elazar was discussing R. Eliezer's opinion! The Tosefta explicitly says so. He cited R. Elazar! Rashi explains that she is exempt for herself for she cannot build nicely. Eliyahu Rabah's proof from Ri'az is not a proof at all. Perhaps Ri'az holds like the Rishonim who rules like R. Eliezer, but Rabanan surely exempt also regarding another woman. This is why the Rambam, who rules like Rabanan, Stam wrote that there is an Isur, and did not say that for others she is Chayav Chatas.

Kaf ha'Chayim (115): Eliyahu Rabah brings that also Ra'avan and the Ran rule like R. Eliezer. Sefer ha'Terumah, Semak and the Mordechai connote like this. Eliyahu Rabah distinguishes between her and another woman, but the Poskim did not. This is relevant to one who transgressed and wants to repent. If one is too weak to fast much, and too poor to redeem the fasts through money, he may be lenient to judge it like an Isur mid'Rabanan.

Note: There are also matters that result from a Torah Chiyuv, e.g. is a man disqualified from testimony if he did so b'Mezid, he is not believed about Torah Isurim, and many hold that he becomes a Mumar [and his Shechitah is Nevelah] only for Chilul Shabbos mid'Oraisa.

Shulchan Aruch (ibid.): Therefore, one may not paint eyes on Shabbos, or plaster dough on the face, for when one removes it the skin reddens.

Beis Yosef (DH Shaninu): Rashi says that some say that Pokeses is fixing the hair with a comb or hands. Some say that it is putting dough on the face. After one removes it, the skin reddens. The Magid Mishneh says that the Rambam holds like the first opinion in Rashi. Semag says that the Yerushalmi says that Pokeses is liable for dyeing.

Gra (DH umi'Ta'am): Also Tosfos (Mo'ed Katan 9b) holds like the second opinion in Rashi. I.e. the Yerushalmi does not argue with the Bavli about the two Perushim of the Mishnah (text of Damesek Eliezer). However, the Yerushalmi argues with the Bavli, for it obligates painting eyes due to writing, like the Hava Amina of the Bavli.

Damesek Eliezer (65): The Gra explains why Tosfos and Semag brought a proof from the Yerushalmi. The Yerushalmi obligates for dyeing, and the Bavli obligates due to Binyan! Do not say that the Yerushalmi argues with the Bavli about the Perush of the Mishnah, i.e. the Yerushalmi holds like Rashi's latter Perush, and the Bavli holds like his first Perush. Rather, if the Yerushalmi explains like the latter Perush, also the Bavli does. They argue about the Halachah. The Yerushalmi obligates painting eyes due to writing, and Pokeses for dyeing, like the Bavli's Hava Amina. The Bavli concluded that painting eyes is liable due to dyeing, and Pokeses for Binyan. The Gra did not say that the Yerushalmi argues about Pokeses, even though it obligates for dyeing, and the Bavli obligates for Binyan or spinning. The Yerushalmi discusses liability for removing the plaster, and the Bavli discusses liability for putting it on.

Shulchan Aruch (320:20): Some say that one who eats berries of other colored fruits must be careful not to touch his clothes or the tablecloth with colored hands, due to Tzove'a.

Chacham Tzvi (92): The Mechaber is not concerned for the hands getting dyed! Dyeing does not apply to food and drink, like 320:20 and Rashi (140a). Why does the Rambam rule unlike Rav regarding Shechitah? Perhaps Rav is Mechayev only because one may not eat it (the blood).

Magen Avraham (25): Even though he colord his hands and face, we are concerned only for something normally dyed. This is unlike 303:25, for it is normal for women to color their faces.