Nazir 40 – Shabbat March 4

שאין דנין קל מחמור להחמיר עליו

as one does not derive a halakha in a lenient case from the halakha in a more stringent one in a manner that would cause one to be stringent in the more lenient case. Since the case of a leper is more stringent than that of a nazirite, as a leper must shave his entire body, one cannot derive from the halakhot of a leper that a stringent halakha applies to a nazirite. It is therefore necessary for the verse to specify that a nazirite’s final shaving must be performed with a razor.

רבי אומר אינו צריך הרי הוא אומר תער לא יעבור על ראשו עד מלאת התורה אמרה אחר מלאת לא תהא תגלחת אלא בתער

Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says that the term “razor” itself is not necessary to teach that a nazirite’s final shaving must be performed with a razor, as the verse states: “A razor shall not come upon his head until the completion of the days that he vowed naziriteship to God” (Numbers 6:5). This full sentence indicates that the Torah said: After the completion of his term the shaving must be performed only with a razor.

והכתיב תער לא יעבור על ראשו

The Gemara comments: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi claims that the term “razor” indicates that shaving, in this case that of a nazirite after the completion of his term, may be performed only with a razor. If so, the verse should be understood in the same manner with regard to the prohibition of shaving. But if one examines the first part of the verse by itself, isn’t it written: “A razor shall not come upon his head” (Numbers 6:5), and the first tanna, whose opinion Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi does not dispute, derives from this verse that he is prohibited from shaving by other means as well, notwithstanding the explicit mention of a razor.

לעבור עליו בשני לאוין

The Gemara explains that the phrase “shall not come upon his head” teaches that a nazirite may not remove his hair in any manner. As for the mention of razor in this context, it serves to teach that he will violate two prohibitions for this action of using a razor, one for removing his hair and one for doing so with a razor.

אמר רב חסדא ללקות באחת לעכב בשתים לסתור אינו סותר אלא ברוב ראשו ובתער

§ Concerning a nazirite who shaves his hair, Rav Ḥisda says: With regard to flogging, a nazirite who shaved his hair is flogged for shaving even one hair; with regard to invalidation, i.e., the ritual shaving of his hair at the end of his naziriteship, the shaving is invalidated if he failed to remove two hairs; and as for negating his naziriteship, shaving during his term negates it only if he shaved most of his head. And this applies only if he removed his hair with a razor.

בתער אין במידי אחרינא לא והקתני מנין לרבות את כל המעבירין אלא אימא כעין תער

The Gemara asks: This indicates that according to the opinion of Rav Ḥisda, a nazirite who shaved with a razor, yes, he negates thirty days, whereas if he did so with anything else, no, he does not negate days. But isn’t it taught: From where is it derived to include all implements that remove hair, i.e., that a nazirite is liable if he uses any of them? The verse states: “Shall not come upon his head,” meaning in any manner. This indicates that a nazirite must add days to his term of naziriteship even if he shaved with an implement other than a razor. Rather, say that Rav Ḥisda meant: In the manner of a razor. That is, the nazirite negates his naziriteship only if he removes his hair as one does with a razor, without leaving any part of it.

תניא נמי הכי נזיר שתלש מירט סיפסף כל שהוא אינו סותר אלא ברוב ראשו ובתער רבי שמעון בן יהודה אומר משום רבי שמעון כשם ששתי שערות מעכבות בו כך שתי שערות סותרות בו

This opinion is also taught in a baraita (Tosefta 4:3): With regard to a nazirite who tore out, uprooted, or pulled out any amount of hair, this negates days of his naziriteship only if he shaved most of his head, and only if he did so in the manner of a razor. Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda says in the name of Rabbi Shimon: Just as leaving two hairs invalidates his shaving of ritual purity at the end of his term, and the act is considered incomplete, so too, leaving a mere two hairs negates days of his naziriteship, if he shaved during his term.

תנן התם שלשה מגלחין ותגלחתן מצוה נזיר ומצורע ולוים וכולן שגילחו שלא בתער או ששיירו שתי שערות לא עשו ולא כלום

§ We learned in a mishna there (Nega’im 14:4): Three types of people must shave their hair, and their shaving is a mitzva: A nazirite; and a leper, as it is stated: “And he who is to be cleansed shall wash his clothes, and shave off all his hair” (Leviticus 14:8–9). And the third category is Levites, when they were first sanctified for their service, as it is stated: “And this you shall do to them to cleanse them: Sprinkle the water of purification upon them, and let them cause a razor to pass over all their flesh” (Numbers 8:7). And with regard to all of them, if they shaved with an implement other than a razor, or if they left two hairs uncut, they have done nothing, i.e., they have not fulfilled their obligation.

אמר מר שלשה מגלחין ותגלחתן מצוה פשיטא מהו דתימא משום עבורי שער הוא ואפילו סך נשא קא משמע לן דלא

The Gemara analyzes this mishna. The Master said there: Three types of people must shave and cut their hair, and their shaving is a mitzva. The Gemara asks: This is obvious; after all, doesn’t the Torah command all three to shave? The Gemara answers: The statement of the mishna is necessary, lest you say that the mitzva is due to and aimed at the removal of hair, and therefore even one who applied a depilatory [nasha] to remove his hair has fulfilled his obligation. The mishna therefore teaches us that this is not so, as the mitzva must be performed by shaving.

קתני וכולן שגילחו שלא בתער בשלמא גבי נזיר כתיב תער לא יעבור על ראשו וגבי לוים כתיב והעבירו תער על כל בשרם אלא מצורע בתער מנלן

The mishna further teaches: And with regard to all of them, if they shaved with an implement other than a razor, they have done nothing. The Gemara asks: Granted, with regard to a nazirite the source of this halakha is clear, as it is written: “A razor shall not come upon his head” (Numbers 6:5), which indicates that when he does shave he must do so with a razor. And similarly, with regard to the Levites it is written: “And let them cause a razor to pass over all their flesh” (Numbers 8:7). However, from where do we derive that a leper must be shaved with a razor for his ritual purification?

וכי תימא תיתי מלוים מה לוים שכן טעונין תגלחת ואין תגלחתן אלא בתער אף אני אביא את המצורע שהוא טעון תגלחת ואין תגלחתו אלא בתער איכא למיפרך מה ללוים שכן טעונין תנופה בגופם תאמר במצורע דלא

And if you would say that this halakha is derived from the case of the Levites, as, just as Levites require shaving and their shaving is only with a razor, so too, I will bring the case of a leper, who requires shaving and say that his shaving can likewise be performed only with a razor, then this comparison can be refuted. What is unique about Levites is that they have an extra stringency, in that they require waving of their bodies, i.e., Aaron was required to pick up and wave the bodies of the Levites as part of the ritual of their sanctification (see Numbers 8:11). Will you say the same with regard to a leper, who does not require waving?

אלא תיתי מנזיר מה לנזיר שכן קרבנו טעון לחם תאמר במצורע דלא אלא מחדא לא אתיא תיתי מתרויהון

Rather, the halakha that a leper must use a razor is derived from the case of a nazirite, who does not require waving either. However, this comparison can also be refuted: What is unique about the nazirite is that his offering requires bread. Will you say the same with regard to a leper, who does not require bread as part of his purification process? Rather, clearly the halakha of a leper is not derived from either one of the above cases, that of the Levites or the nazirite. Therefore, let it be derived from the two of them.

מהי תיתי תיתי מלוים מה ללוים שכן טעונין תנופה בגופן נזיר יוכיח מה לנזיר שכן קרבנו טעון לחם לוים יוכיחו

The Gemara elaborates: As stated previously, from which single case can it be derived? If you say it can be derived from the Levites, what is unique about Levites is that they require waving of their bodies. This suggestion can be countered by saying that the case of a nazirite proves that this stringency is not the decisive factor leading to the requirement of a razor, as a nazirite is not waved and yet he must be shaved with a razor. And if you respond: What is unique about the nazirite is that his offering requires bread, one can similarly argue that the Levites prove that this stringency does not lead to the halakha of shaving with a razor, as the offering of the Levites does not require bread and nevertheless they must be shaved with a razor.

וחזר הדין לא ראי זה כראי זה ולא ראי זה כראי זה הצד השוה שבהם שהן טעונין תגלחת ותגלחתן בתער אף אני אביא את המצורע שהוא טעון תגלחת ותגלחתו בתער

And in this manner the derivation has reverted to its starting point. However, at this stage the halakha is derived from a combination of the two sources: The aspect of this case is not like the aspect of that case, and the aspect of that is not like the aspect of this; each case has its own special features. The common denominator is that they require shaving and their shaving is with a razor. Therefore, I will also bring the case of the leper, who requires shaving, and say that his shaving must be with a razor.

אמר ליה רבא מברניש לרב אשי וליפרוך מה להצד השוה שבהן שכן

Rava of Barnish said to Rav Ashi: And let us refute this derivation in the following manner: What is the common denominator between the Levites and the nazirite? Their common denominator is that

אין קרבנו בדלות תאמר במצורע שקרבנו בדלות

the offering in each case does not include a level of poverty. In both cases the offering is fixed, i.e., a poor person does not have the option of bringing a less expensive offering due to his financial straits. Will you say the same with regard to the leper, whose offering includes a level of poverty, as a poor person can bring turtledoves instead of sheep (Leviticus 14:21–22)? Since the Torah was more lenient in the case of a leper than the cases of a nazirite and the Levites, it could also be that the halakha is also lenient with regard to his shaving, by not demanding the use of a razor. Consequently, there is no proof that a leper is obligated to shave with a razor.

אמר ליה רבא בר משרשיא לרבא האי תנא מעיקרא אמר ללמדו ממצורע אי אפשר שאין דנין קל מחמור להחמיר עליו והדר אמר נילף מדינא ומדינא נמי לא יליף

In continuation of this discussion, Rava bar Mesharshiyya said to Rava: This tanna initially said, with regard to the obligation of a nazirite to shave with a razor (39b): It is impossible to learn this requirement from the halakha that a leper must use a razor, as one does not derive a halakha in a lenient case from the halakha in a more stringent one in a manner that would cause one to be stringent in the more lenient case. This indicates that it is obvious to the tanna that a leper himself must shave with a razor. And he then said: Let us derive by means of an inference that a leper must use a razor, and ultimately he did not derive it from an inference by analogy either, due to Rava of Barnish’s objection. What, then, is the source for the halakha that a leper must use a razor?

אמר ליה ההוא אליבא דרבנן הא אליבא דרבי אליעזר דתנן ואינו חייב עד שילקטנו בתער רבי אליעזר אומר אפילו ליקטו במלקט וברהיטני חייב

Rava said to Rava bar Mesharshiyya: That baraita, which states that one cannot derive the halakha from the case of a leper, which indicates that it is evident that a leper must shave with a razor, is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. They derive the halakha of a leper’s shaving from the prohibition against destroying one’s beard. Conversely, this source, which attempted to derive the shaving of a leper from that of a nazirite and the Levites, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who does not derive the halakha of a leper’s shaving from the prohibition against destroying one’s beard. Rabbi Eliezer must therefore derive this halakha by analogy from the cases of a nazirite and the Levites. This is as we learned in a mishna (Makkot 20a): And one is liable for destroying his beard only if he removes it with a razor. Rabbi Eliezer says: Even if he removed it with small tweezers or a plane [rehitni] he is liable. Rabbi Eliezer maintains that one violates the prohibition even by destroying his beard with means other than a razor.

מאי טעמייהו דרבנן דתניא זקנו מה תלמוד לומר לפי שנאמר ופאת זקנם לא יגלחו יכול אפילו מצורע כן תלמוד לומר זקנו

The Gemara asks: What is the reason of the Rabbis; how do they derive from this halakha that a leper must shave with a razor? As it is taught in a baraita that the verse states with regard to the shaving of a leper: “He shall shave all his hair off his head and his beard” (Leviticus 14:9). Since the verse states: “All his hair,” what is the meaning when the verse states: “His beard”? It is because it is stated with regard to priests: “Neither shall they shave off the corners of their beards” (Leviticus 21:5). One might have thought that the same should also apply to a leper, i.e. that a leper who was a priest should be prohibited from shaving his beard. For this reason the verse states: “His beard,” which emphasizes that despite the general prohibition barring a priest from shaving his beard, a priest who is a leper is obligated to do so.

ומנלן דבתער דתניא ופאת זקנם לא יגלחו יכול אפילו גילחו במספרים יהא חייב תלמוד לומר ולא תשחית

And from where do we derive that this shaving of a leper must be performed with a razor? It is as it is taught in a baraita, with regard to the prohibition against a priest shaving his beard in the verse “Neither shall they shave off the corners of their beards” (Leviticus 21:5): One might have thought that a priest should be liable even if he shaved his beard with scissors. The verse states, in the general prohibition issued to all Jewish men: “Neither shall you destroy the corners of your beard” (Leviticus 19:27). This teaches that one is liable only if he shaves in a destructive manner, by uprooting the hairs entirely, which excludes the use of scissors.

יכול ליקטו במלקט וברהיטני יהא חייב תלמוד לומר ופאת זקנם לא יגלחו הא כיצד איזהו גילוח שיש בו השחתה הוי אומר זה תער

One might have thought that even if he removed it with tweezers or planes he should be liable. The verse states: “Neither shall they shave off the corners of their beards” (Leviticus 21:5), which indicates that the priests are liable only for removing their beards in a manner of shaving. How so? What is the manner of shaving that involves destruction? You must say this is shaving with a razor. The Rabbis learn from here that the implement forbidden to a priest is the same one that must be used for the shaving of a leper, namely a razor.

ממאי דילמא לעולם אפילו ליקטו במלקט וברהיטני נמי מצוה קעביד והא קאתי לאשמועינן דאפילו בתער לא מיחייב עליה

The Gemara asks: From where do we know that this is correct? Perhaps if a leper actually removed it with tweezers or a plane he also performs the mitzva and thereby fulfills his obligation, and this verse is coming to teach us that even if the leper shaved with a razor he is not liable for destroying his beard. In other words, one might have thought that a leper is prohibited from shaving with a razor, and the verse teaches that this is not correct. If so, there is no proof from here that the shaving of a leper must be performed with a razor.

אמרי אי סלקא דעתך כי עביד נמי במלקט וברהיטני שפיר דמי לישתוק קרא מיניה ואנא אמינא ומה גבי נזיר דאיסורא קא עביד אפילו הכי מחייב הכא דמצוה לא כל שכן

They say in response: If it should enter your mind that if a leper performs his shaving with tweezers or a plane too, it is well and he has performed the mitzva, then let the verse be silent and refrain from the extra phrase, “his beard.” And I would say the following: And just as with regard to a nazirite, who performs a transgression by shaving his hair during his naziriteship and who, even so, is deemed liable for removing hair without the use of a razor, here too, in the case of a leper, where his shaving is a mitzva, does it not follow all the more so that he should be permitted to shave with any implement?