Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

October 1, 2015 | 讬状讞 讘转砖专讬 转砖注状讜

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Nazir 40

砖讗讬谉 讚谞讬谉 拽诇 诪讞诪讜专 诇讛讞诪讬专 注诇讬讜

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鈥檚 final shaving must be performed with a razor.

专讘讬 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 转注专 诇讗 讬注讘讜专 注诇 专讗砖讜 注讚 诪诇讗转 讛转讜专讛 讗诪专讛 讗讞专 诪诇讗转 诇讗 转讛讗 转讙诇讞转 讗诇讗 讘转注专

Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says that the term 鈥渞azor鈥 itself is not necessary to teach that a nazirite鈥檚 final shaving must be performed with a razor, as the verse states: 鈥淎 razor shall not come upon his head until the completion of the days that he vowed naziriteship to God鈥 (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.

讜讛讻转讬讘 转注专 诇讗 讬注讘讜专 注诇 专讗砖讜

The Gemara comments: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi claims that the term 鈥渞azor鈥 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鈥檛 it written: 鈥淎 razor shall not come upon his head鈥 (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.

诇注讘讜专 注诇讬讜 讘砖谞讬 诇讗讜讬谉

The Gemara explains that the phrase 鈥渟hall not come upon his head鈥 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.

讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 诇诇拽讜转 讘讗讞转 诇注讻讘 讘砖转讬诐 诇住转讜专 讗讬谞讜 住讜转专 讗诇讗 讘专讜讘 专讗砖讜 讜讘转注专

搂 Concerning a nazirite who shaves his hair, Rav 岣sda 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.

讘转注专 讗讬谉 讘诪讬讚讬 讗讞专讬谞讗 诇讗 讜讛拽转谞讬 诪谞讬谉 诇专讘讜转 讗转 讻诇 讛诪注讘讬专讬谉 讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 讻注讬谉 转注专

The Gemara asks: This indicates that according to the opinion of Rav 岣sda, 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鈥檛 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: 鈥淪hall not come upon his head,鈥 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 岣sda 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.

转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 谞讝讬专 砖转诇砖 诪讬专讟 住讬驻住祝 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 讗讬谞讜 住讜转专 讗诇讗 讘专讜讘 专讗砖讜 讜讘转注专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讻砖诐 砖砖转讬 砖注专讜转 诪注讻讘讜转 讘讜 讻讱 砖转讬 砖注专讜转 住讜转专讜转 讘讜

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.

转谞谉 讛转诐 砖诇砖讛 诪讙诇讞讬谉 讜转讙诇讞转谉 诪爪讜讛 谞讝讬专 讜诪爪讜专注 讜诇讜讬诐 讜讻讜诇谉 砖讙讬诇讞讜 砖诇讗 讘转注专 讗讜 砖砖讬讬专讜 砖转讬 砖注专讜转 诇讗 注砖讜 讜诇讗 讻诇讜诐

We learned in a mishna there (Nega鈥檌m 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: 鈥淎nd he who is to be cleansed shall wash his clothes, and shave off all his hair鈥 (Leviticus 14:8鈥9). And the third category is Levites, when they were first sanctified for their service, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd 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鈥 (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.

讗诪专 诪专 砖诇砖讛 诪讙诇讞讬谉 讜转讙诇讞转谉 诪爪讜讛 驻砖讬讟讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 诪砖讜诐 注讘讜专讬 砖注专 讛讜讗 讜讗驻讬诇讜 住讱 谞砖讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚诇讗

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鈥檛 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.

拽转谞讬 讜讻讜诇谉 砖讙讬诇讞讜 砖诇讗 讘转注专 讘砖诇诪讗 讙讘讬 谞讝讬专 讻转讬讘 转注专 诇讗 讬注讘讜专 注诇 专讗砖讜 讜讙讘讬 诇讜讬诐 讻转讬讘 讜讛注讘讬专讜 转注专 注诇 讻诇 讘砖专诐 讗诇讗 诪爪讜专注 讘转注专 诪谞诇谉

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: 鈥淎 razor shall not come upon his head鈥 (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: 鈥淎nd let them cause a razor to pass over all their flesh鈥 (Numbers 8:7). However, from where do we derive that a leper must be shaved with a razor for his ritual purification?

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 转讬转讬 诪诇讜讬诐 诪讛 诇讜讬诐 砖讻谉 讟注讜谞讬谉 转讙诇讞转 讜讗讬谉 转讙诇讞转谉 讗诇讗 讘转注专 讗祝 讗谞讬 讗讘讬讗 讗转 讛诪爪讜专注 砖讛讜讗 讟注讜谉 转讙诇讞转 讜讗讬谉 转讙诇讞转讜 讗诇讗 讘转注专 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬驻专讱 诪讛 诇诇讜讬诐 砖讻谉 讟注讜谞讬谉 转谞讜驻讛 讘讙讜驻诐 转讗诪专 讘诪爪讜专注 讚诇讗

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?

讗诇讗 转讬转讬 诪谞讝讬专 诪讛 诇谞讝讬专 砖讻谉 拽专讘谞讜 讟注讜谉 诇讞诐 转讗诪专 讘诪爪讜专注 讚诇讗 讗诇讗 诪讞讚讗 诇讗 讗转讬讗 转讬转讬 诪转专讜讬讛讜谉

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.

诪讛讬 转讬转讬 转讬转讬 诪诇讜讬诐 诪讛 诇诇讜讬诐 砖讻谉 讟注讜谞讬谉 转谞讜驻讛 讘讙讜驻谉 谞讝讬专 讬讜讻讬讞 诪讛 诇谞讝讬专 砖讻谉 拽专讘谞讜 讟注讜谉 诇讞诐 诇讜讬诐 讬讜讻讬讞讜

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.

讜讞讝专 讛讚讬谉 诇讗 专讗讬 讝讛 讻专讗讬 讝讛 讜诇讗 专讗讬 讝讛 讻专讗讬 讝讛 讛爪讚 讛砖讜讛 砖讘讛诐 砖讛谉 讟注讜谞讬谉 转讙诇讞转 讜转讙诇讞转谉 讘转注专 讗祝 讗谞讬 讗讘讬讗 讗转 讛诪爪讜专注 砖讛讜讗 讟注讜谉 转讙诇讞转 讜转讙诇讞转讜 讘转注专

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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 诪讘专谞讬砖 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讜诇讬驻专讜讱 诪讛 诇讛爪讚 讛砖讜讛 砖讘讛谉 砖讻谉

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

讗讬谉 拽专讘谞讜 讘讚诇讜转 转讗诪专 讘诪爪讜专注 砖拽专讘谞讜 讘讚诇讜转

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鈥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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 讘专 诪砖专砖讬讗 诇专讘讗 讛讗讬 转谞讗 诪注讬拽专讗 讗诪专 诇诇诪讚讜 诪诪爪讜专注 讗讬 讗驻砖专 砖讗讬谉 讚谞讬谉 拽诇 诪讞诪讜专 诇讛讞诪讬专 注诇讬讜 讜讛讚专 讗诪专 谞讬诇祝 诪讚讬谞讗 讜诪讚讬谞讗 谞诪讬 诇讗 讬诇讬祝

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鈥檚 objection. What, then, is the source for the halakha that a leper must use a razor?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讛讜讗 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘谞谉 讛讗 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讚转谞谉 讜讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 注讚 砖讬诇拽讟谞讜 讘转注专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 诇讬拽讟讜 讘诪诇拽讟 讜讘专讛讬讟谞讬 讞讬讬讘

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鈥檚 shaving from the prohibition against destroying one鈥檚 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鈥檚 shaving from the prohibition against destroying one鈥檚 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.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讬讬讛讜 讚专讘谞谉 讚转谞讬讗 讝拽谞讜 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇驻讬 砖谞讗诪专 讜驻讗转 讝拽谞诐 诇讗 讬讙诇讞讜 讬讻讜诇 讗驻讬诇讜 诪爪讜专注 讻谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讝拽谞讜

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: 鈥淗e shall shave all his hair off his head and his beard鈥 (Leviticus 14:9). Since the verse states: 鈥淎ll his hair,鈥 what is the meaning when the verse states: 鈥淗is beard鈥? It is because it is stated with regard to priests: 鈥淣either shall they shave off the corners of their beards鈥 (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: 鈥淗is beard,鈥 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.

讜诪谞诇谉 讚讘转注专 讚转谞讬讗 讜驻讗转 讝拽谞诐 诇讗 讬讙诇讞讜 讬讻讜诇 讗驻讬诇讜 讙讬诇讞讜 讘诪住驻专讬诐 讬讛讗 讞讬讬讘 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜诇讗 转砖讞讬转

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 鈥淣either shall they shave off the corners of their beards鈥 (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: 鈥淣either shall you destroy the corners of your beard鈥 (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.

讬讻讜诇 诇讬拽讟讜 讘诪诇拽讟 讜讘专讛讬讟谞讬 讬讛讗 讞讬讬讘 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜驻讗转 讝拽谞诐 诇讗 讬讙诇讞讜 讛讗 讻讬爪讚 讗讬讝讛讜 讙讬诇讜讞 砖讬砖 讘讜 讛砖讞转讛 讛讜讬 讗讜诪专 讝讛 转注专

One might have thought that even if he removed it with tweezers or planes he should be liable. The verse states: 鈥淣either shall they shave off the corners of their beards鈥 (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.

诪诪讗讬 讚讬诇诪讗 诇注讜诇诐 讗驻讬诇讜 诇讬拽讟讜 讘诪诇拽讟 讜讘专讛讬讟谞讬 谞诪讬 诪爪讜讛 拽注讘讬讚 讜讛讗 拽讗转讬 诇讗砖诪讜注讬谞谉 讚讗驻讬诇讜 讘转注专 诇讗 诪讬讞讬讬讘 注诇讬讛

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.

讗诪专讬 讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讻讬 注讘讬讚 谞诪讬 讘诪诇拽讟 讜讘专讛讬讟谞讬 砖驻讬专 讚诪讬 诇讬砖转讜拽 拽专讗 诪讬谞讬讛 讜讗谞讗 讗诪讬谞讗 讜诪讛 讙讘讬 谞讝讬专 讚讗讬住讜专讗 拽讗 注讘讬讚 讗驻讬诇讜 讛讻讬 诪讞讬讬讘 讛讻讗 讚诪爪讜讛 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉

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, 鈥渉is beard.鈥 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?

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Nazir 40

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Nazir 40

砖讗讬谉 讚谞讬谉 拽诇 诪讞诪讜专 诇讛讞诪讬专 注诇讬讜

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鈥檚 final shaving must be performed with a razor.

专讘讬 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 转注专 诇讗 讬注讘讜专 注诇 专讗砖讜 注讚 诪诇讗转 讛转讜专讛 讗诪专讛 讗讞专 诪诇讗转 诇讗 转讛讗 转讙诇讞转 讗诇讗 讘转注专

Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says that the term 鈥渞azor鈥 itself is not necessary to teach that a nazirite鈥檚 final shaving must be performed with a razor, as the verse states: 鈥淎 razor shall not come upon his head until the completion of the days that he vowed naziriteship to God鈥 (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.

讜讛讻转讬讘 转注专 诇讗 讬注讘讜专 注诇 专讗砖讜

The Gemara comments: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi claims that the term 鈥渞azor鈥 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鈥檛 it written: 鈥淎 razor shall not come upon his head鈥 (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.

诇注讘讜专 注诇讬讜 讘砖谞讬 诇讗讜讬谉

The Gemara explains that the phrase 鈥渟hall not come upon his head鈥 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.

讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 诇诇拽讜转 讘讗讞转 诇注讻讘 讘砖转讬诐 诇住转讜专 讗讬谞讜 住讜转专 讗诇讗 讘专讜讘 专讗砖讜 讜讘转注专

搂 Concerning a nazirite who shaves his hair, Rav 岣sda 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.

讘转注专 讗讬谉 讘诪讬讚讬 讗讞专讬谞讗 诇讗 讜讛拽转谞讬 诪谞讬谉 诇专讘讜转 讗转 讻诇 讛诪注讘讬专讬谉 讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 讻注讬谉 转注专

The Gemara asks: This indicates that according to the opinion of Rav 岣sda, 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鈥檛 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: 鈥淪hall not come upon his head,鈥 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 岣sda 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.

转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 谞讝讬专 砖转诇砖 诪讬专讟 住讬驻住祝 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 讗讬谞讜 住讜转专 讗诇讗 讘专讜讘 专讗砖讜 讜讘转注专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讻砖诐 砖砖转讬 砖注专讜转 诪注讻讘讜转 讘讜 讻讱 砖转讬 砖注专讜转 住讜转专讜转 讘讜

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.

转谞谉 讛转诐 砖诇砖讛 诪讙诇讞讬谉 讜转讙诇讞转谉 诪爪讜讛 谞讝讬专 讜诪爪讜专注 讜诇讜讬诐 讜讻讜诇谉 砖讙讬诇讞讜 砖诇讗 讘转注专 讗讜 砖砖讬讬专讜 砖转讬 砖注专讜转 诇讗 注砖讜 讜诇讗 讻诇讜诐

We learned in a mishna there (Nega鈥檌m 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: 鈥淎nd he who is to be cleansed shall wash his clothes, and shave off all his hair鈥 (Leviticus 14:8鈥9). And the third category is Levites, when they were first sanctified for their service, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd 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鈥 (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.

讗诪专 诪专 砖诇砖讛 诪讙诇讞讬谉 讜转讙诇讞转谉 诪爪讜讛 驻砖讬讟讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 诪砖讜诐 注讘讜专讬 砖注专 讛讜讗 讜讗驻讬诇讜 住讱 谞砖讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚诇讗

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鈥檛 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.

拽转谞讬 讜讻讜诇谉 砖讙讬诇讞讜 砖诇讗 讘转注专 讘砖诇诪讗 讙讘讬 谞讝讬专 讻转讬讘 转注专 诇讗 讬注讘讜专 注诇 专讗砖讜 讜讙讘讬 诇讜讬诐 讻转讬讘 讜讛注讘讬专讜 转注专 注诇 讻诇 讘砖专诐 讗诇讗 诪爪讜专注 讘转注专 诪谞诇谉

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: 鈥淎 razor shall not come upon his head鈥 (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: 鈥淎nd let them cause a razor to pass over all their flesh鈥 (Numbers 8:7). However, from where do we derive that a leper must be shaved with a razor for his ritual purification?

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 转讬转讬 诪诇讜讬诐 诪讛 诇讜讬诐 砖讻谉 讟注讜谞讬谉 转讙诇讞转 讜讗讬谉 转讙诇讞转谉 讗诇讗 讘转注专 讗祝 讗谞讬 讗讘讬讗 讗转 讛诪爪讜专注 砖讛讜讗 讟注讜谉 转讙诇讞转 讜讗讬谉 转讙诇讞转讜 讗诇讗 讘转注专 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬驻专讱 诪讛 诇诇讜讬诐 砖讻谉 讟注讜谞讬谉 转谞讜驻讛 讘讙讜驻诐 转讗诪专 讘诪爪讜专注 讚诇讗

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?

讗诇讗 转讬转讬 诪谞讝讬专 诪讛 诇谞讝讬专 砖讻谉 拽专讘谞讜 讟注讜谉 诇讞诐 转讗诪专 讘诪爪讜专注 讚诇讗 讗诇讗 诪讞讚讗 诇讗 讗转讬讗 转讬转讬 诪转专讜讬讛讜谉

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.

诪讛讬 转讬转讬 转讬转讬 诪诇讜讬诐 诪讛 诇诇讜讬诐 砖讻谉 讟注讜谞讬谉 转谞讜驻讛 讘讙讜驻谉 谞讝讬专 讬讜讻讬讞 诪讛 诇谞讝讬专 砖讻谉 拽专讘谞讜 讟注讜谉 诇讞诐 诇讜讬诐 讬讜讻讬讞讜

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.

讜讞讝专 讛讚讬谉 诇讗 专讗讬 讝讛 讻专讗讬 讝讛 讜诇讗 专讗讬 讝讛 讻专讗讬 讝讛 讛爪讚 讛砖讜讛 砖讘讛诐 砖讛谉 讟注讜谞讬谉 转讙诇讞转 讜转讙诇讞转谉 讘转注专 讗祝 讗谞讬 讗讘讬讗 讗转 讛诪爪讜专注 砖讛讜讗 讟注讜谉 转讙诇讞转 讜转讙诇讞转讜 讘转注专

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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 诪讘专谞讬砖 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讜诇讬驻专讜讱 诪讛 诇讛爪讚 讛砖讜讛 砖讘讛谉 砖讻谉

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

讗讬谉 拽专讘谞讜 讘讚诇讜转 转讗诪专 讘诪爪讜专注 砖拽专讘谞讜 讘讚诇讜转

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鈥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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 讘专 诪砖专砖讬讗 诇专讘讗 讛讗讬 转谞讗 诪注讬拽专讗 讗诪专 诇诇诪讚讜 诪诪爪讜专注 讗讬 讗驻砖专 砖讗讬谉 讚谞讬谉 拽诇 诪讞诪讜专 诇讛讞诪讬专 注诇讬讜 讜讛讚专 讗诪专 谞讬诇祝 诪讚讬谞讗 讜诪讚讬谞讗 谞诪讬 诇讗 讬诇讬祝

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鈥檚 objection. What, then, is the source for the halakha that a leper must use a razor?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讛讜讗 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘谞谉 讛讗 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讚转谞谉 讜讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 注讚 砖讬诇拽讟谞讜 讘转注专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 诇讬拽讟讜 讘诪诇拽讟 讜讘专讛讬讟谞讬 讞讬讬讘

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鈥檚 shaving from the prohibition against destroying one鈥檚 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鈥檚 shaving from the prohibition against destroying one鈥檚 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.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讬讬讛讜 讚专讘谞谉 讚转谞讬讗 讝拽谞讜 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇驻讬 砖谞讗诪专 讜驻讗转 讝拽谞诐 诇讗 讬讙诇讞讜 讬讻讜诇 讗驻讬诇讜 诪爪讜专注 讻谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讝拽谞讜

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: 鈥淗e shall shave all his hair off his head and his beard鈥 (Leviticus 14:9). Since the verse states: 鈥淎ll his hair,鈥 what is the meaning when the verse states: 鈥淗is beard鈥? It is because it is stated with regard to priests: 鈥淣either shall they shave off the corners of their beards鈥 (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: 鈥淗is beard,鈥 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.

讜诪谞诇谉 讚讘转注专 讚转谞讬讗 讜驻讗转 讝拽谞诐 诇讗 讬讙诇讞讜 讬讻讜诇 讗驻讬诇讜 讙讬诇讞讜 讘诪住驻专讬诐 讬讛讗 讞讬讬讘 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜诇讗 转砖讞讬转

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 鈥淣either shall they shave off the corners of their beards鈥 (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: 鈥淣either shall you destroy the corners of your beard鈥 (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.

讬讻讜诇 诇讬拽讟讜 讘诪诇拽讟 讜讘专讛讬讟谞讬 讬讛讗 讞讬讬讘 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜驻讗转 讝拽谞诐 诇讗 讬讙诇讞讜 讛讗 讻讬爪讚 讗讬讝讛讜 讙讬诇讜讞 砖讬砖 讘讜 讛砖讞转讛 讛讜讬 讗讜诪专 讝讛 转注专

One might have thought that even if he removed it with tweezers or planes he should be liable. The verse states: 鈥淣either shall they shave off the corners of their beards鈥 (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.

诪诪讗讬 讚讬诇诪讗 诇注讜诇诐 讗驻讬诇讜 诇讬拽讟讜 讘诪诇拽讟 讜讘专讛讬讟谞讬 谞诪讬 诪爪讜讛 拽注讘讬讚 讜讛讗 拽讗转讬 诇讗砖诪讜注讬谞谉 讚讗驻讬诇讜 讘转注专 诇讗 诪讬讞讬讬讘 注诇讬讛

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.

讗诪专讬 讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讻讬 注讘讬讚 谞诪讬 讘诪诇拽讟 讜讘专讛讬讟谞讬 砖驻讬专 讚诪讬 诇讬砖转讜拽 拽专讗 诪讬谞讬讛 讜讗谞讗 讗诪讬谞讗 讜诪讛 讙讘讬 谞讝讬专 讚讗讬住讜专讗 拽讗 注讘讬讚 讗驻讬诇讜 讛讻讬 诪讞讬讬讘 讛讻讗 讚诪爪讜讛 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉

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, 鈥渉is beard.鈥 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?

Scroll To Top