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

Today's Daf Yomi

October 2, 2015 | 讬状讟 讘转砖专讬 转砖注状讜

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the Refuah Shlemah of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Nazir 41

Today’s shiur is dedicated to the memory of Rabbi Eitam and Naama Henkin


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

讜转讜 讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讻讬 注讘讬讚 讘诪诇拽讟 讜讘专讛讬讟谞讬 诪爪讜讛 拽讗 注讘讬讚 诪讚诇讗 讻转讬讘 转注专 讻专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讚讗诪专

And furthermore, if it should enter your mind that when he performs his shaving with tweezers or a plane he performs a mitzva, from the fact that the word razor is not written he should not be allowed to use a razor at all, in accordance with the opinion of Reish Lakish, who says a principle in this regard.

讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖讗转讛 诪讜爪讗 注砖讛 讜诇讗 转注砖讛 讗诐 讗转讛 讬讻讜诇 诇拽讬讬诐 讗转 砖谞讬讛诐 诪讜讟讘 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讬讘讗 注砖讛 讜讬讚讞讛 讗转 诇讗 转注砖讛

The Gemara cites the relevant principle: Any place where you find a positive mitzva and a prohibition that clash with one another, if you can find some way to fulfill both, that is preferable; and if that is not possible, the positive mitzva will come and override the prohibition. In this case the leper can fulfill his duty with tweezers or a plane, and therefore it should be prohibited for him to shave with a razor. Since it was necessary for the verse to say that the positive mitzva for a leper to shave overrides the prohibition against destroying one鈥檚 beard, this proves that the mitzva can be performed only with a razor.

讜专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讬诇讬祝 诪专讗砖讜 讚转谞讬讗 专讗砖讜 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇驻讬 砖谞讗诪专 讙讘讬 谞讝讬专 转注专 诇讗 讬注讘讜专 注诇 专讗砖讜 讬讻讜诇 讗祝 谞讝讬专 诪爪讜专注 讻谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 专讗砖讜

The Gemara asks: And Rabbi Eliezer, what is his reason? From where does he derive the halakha that a leper must use a razor? He derives it from the fact that the verse states with regard to a leper: 鈥淗e shall shave all his hair off his head and his beard鈥 (Leviticus 14:9). As it is taught in a baraita: Why does the verse state: 鈥淗is head,鈥 if it already stated: 鈥淎ll his hair鈥? It is because it is stated with regard to a nazirite: 鈥淣o razor shall come upon his head鈥 (Numbers 6:5), and therefore one might have thought that the same should also apply to a nazirite who is a leper, i.e., it should be prohibited for him to shave his head even for the purification ritual for his leprosy. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淗is head,鈥 to teach that a nazirite who is a leper must shave his head with a razor. Being that a nazirite is prohibited only to use a razor, if a leper could fulfill his obligation to remove his hair using other implements, a nazirite who is a leper would not be permitted to use a razor. Therefore, it can be inferred from the halakha of a nazirite who is a leper that the only way for a leper to remove his hair is with a razor.

诪诪讗讬 讚诇诪讗 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 诪爪讜讛 拽注讘讬讚 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 转注专 诇诪讛 诇讬 诇诪讬诪专讗 讚讗驻讬诇讜 讘转注专 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讙讘讬 谞讝讬专 讻讬 注讘讬讚 讘转注专 诪讬讞讬讬讘 讙讘讬 诪爪讜专注 谞诪讬 诇讬讞讬讬讘 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚诇讗

The Gemara rejects this suggestion: And from where do you know that a leper must shave his head with a razor? Perhaps even if he actually removed it with tweezers or a plane he performs a mitzva. And if you would say: If so, why do I need the verse to teach me that he uses a razor, through the derivation of the superfluous term 鈥渉is hair,鈥 as above, one can answer: That is to say that he is permitted to shave even with a razor. As, it might enter your mind to say that since with regard to a nazirite, when he performs the act of shaving with a razor he is liable for transgressing the prohibition, with regard to a nazirite who is a leper as well, he should also be liable even if he shaved for his leprosy. The verse therefore teaches us that this is not the case, but it does not teach that a leper must use a razor.

讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讻讬 注讘讬讚 讘诪诇拽讟 讜讘专讛讬讟谞讬 诪爪讜讛 拽注讘讬讚 诪讚诇讗 讻转讘 转注专 讻专讬砖 诇拽讬砖

The Gemara rejects this suggestion: If it should enter your mind that when a leper performs his hair removal with tweezers or a plane he performs a mitzva, then from the fact that the verse did not explicitly write: Razor, it can be inferred that he is not allowed to use one, in accordance with the aforementioned principle of Reish Lakish that one may not violate a prohibition, even for the sake of a mitzva, if it is possible to perform the mitzva in a different manner. Rather, the verse must be coming to teach that the mitzva of the shaving of a leper can be fulfilled only with a razor.

讜专讘谞谉 讛讗讬 专讗砖讜 诪讗讬 讚专砖讬 讘讬讛 诪讬讘注讬 诇讛讜 诇诪讬讚讞讬 诇讗讜 讚讛拽驻讛 讚转谞讬讗 诇讗 转拽讬驻讜 驻讗转 专讗砖讻诐 讬讻讜诇 讗祝 诪爪讜专注 讻谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 专讗砖讜

The Gemara asks: And the Rabbis, with regard to this term: 鈥淗is head,鈥 which is referring to a leper, what do they learn from it? The Gemara answers: They require this term to override the prohibition of rounding the corners of the head. As it is taught in a baraita with regard to the verse 鈥淵ou shall not round the corners of your heads鈥 (Leviticus 19:27): One might have thought that the same should also apply to a leper, that it should also be prohibited for him to round the corners of his head when he shaves. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淗is head,鈥 with regard to a leper.

诇诪讛 诇讬 诇诪讻转讘 专讗砖讜 讜转讬驻讜拽 诇讬讛 诪讝拽谞讜 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 讗祝 诪爪讜专注 讻谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讝拽谞讜

The Gemara asks: Why do I need the Torah to write: 鈥淗is head鈥? And let one derive this halakha that the mitzva of shaving overrides that prohibition from the term 鈥渉is beard鈥 (Leviticus 14:9). As it is taught in a baraita: Why does the verse state: 鈥淗is beard鈥? It is because the verse states with regard to priests: 鈥淣either shall they shave off the corners of their beards鈥 (Leviticus 21:5), and therefore one might have thought that the same prohibition against shaving one鈥檚 beard should also apply to a leper. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淗is beard.鈥

诇诪讛 诇讬 诇诪讻转讘 专讗砖讜 讜诇诪讛 诇讬 诇诪讻转讘 讝拽谞讜 爪专讬讻讬 讚讗讬 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讝拽谞讜 讜诇讗 讻转讘 专讗砖讜 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讛拽驻转 讻诇 讛专讗砖 诇讗 砖诪讛 讛拽驻讛 诇讛讻讬 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 专讗砖讜

The Gemara asks: If so, why do I need the Torah to write: 鈥淗is head,鈥 and why do I need it to write: 鈥淗is beard鈥? One source should suffice to teach that the shaving of a leper overrides any prohibitions that would be violated by that act. The Gemara answers: Both verses are necessary. As, had the Merciful One written only: 鈥淗is beard,鈥 and not written: 鈥淗is head,鈥 I would say that the rounding of the entire head, i.e., shaving all the hair off one鈥檚 head and not merely the sides, is not called a prohibited rounding. If that were so, the shaving of a leper鈥檚 head would not be prohibited by Torah law. For this reason the Merciful One writes: 鈥淗is head,鈥 to teach that the shaving that the leper performs would be considered a prohibited rounding of the head had the Torah not commanded him to shave.

讜讗讬 讻转讘 专讗砖讜 讜诇讗 讻转讘 讝拽谞讜 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 诪砖诪注 转专转讬 讚讗转讬 注砖讛 讜讚讞讬 讗转 诇讗 转注砖讛 讜诪砖诪注 讚讛拽驻转 讻诇 讛专讗砖 砖诪讛 讛拽驻讛 讜讗讻转讬 讘转注专 诪谞诇谉 诇讛讻讬 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讝拽谞讜

And had the Torah written only: 鈥淗is head,鈥 and not written: 鈥淗is beard,鈥 I would say that 鈥渉is head鈥 teaches two matters. First, that a positive mitzva comes and overrides a prohibition. And it also teaches that rounding the entire head is called rounding. And still, from where do we derive that a leper must shave with a razor? For this reason the Merciful One also wrote: 鈥淗is beard,鈥 and we derive from the prohibition that bars priests from destroying their beards that the removal of the beard involves the use of a razor.

讜专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讚讗转讬 注砖讛 讜讚讞讬 讗转 诇讗 转注砖讛 诪谞诇讬讛 讬诇讬祝 诪讙讚讬诇讬诐 讚转谞讬讗 诇讗 转诇讘砖 砖注讟谞讝

The Gemara asks: And Rabbi Eliezer, from where does he derive the general principle that a positive mitzva will come and override a prohibition? The Gemara answers: He derives it from the mitzva of ritual fringes. As it is taught in a baraita: This verse: 鈥淵ou shall not wear diverse kinds of wool and linen鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:11),

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the Refuah Shlemah of Naama bat Yael Esther.

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 41

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Nazir 41

讜转讜 讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讻讬 注讘讬讚 讘诪诇拽讟 讜讘专讛讬讟谞讬 诪爪讜讛 拽讗 注讘讬讚 诪讚诇讗 讻转讬讘 转注专 讻专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讚讗诪专

And furthermore, if it should enter your mind that when he performs his shaving with tweezers or a plane he performs a mitzva, from the fact that the word razor is not written he should not be allowed to use a razor at all, in accordance with the opinion of Reish Lakish, who says a principle in this regard.

讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖讗转讛 诪讜爪讗 注砖讛 讜诇讗 转注砖讛 讗诐 讗转讛 讬讻讜诇 诇拽讬讬诐 讗转 砖谞讬讛诐 诪讜讟讘 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讬讘讗 注砖讛 讜讬讚讞讛 讗转 诇讗 转注砖讛

The Gemara cites the relevant principle: Any place where you find a positive mitzva and a prohibition that clash with one another, if you can find some way to fulfill both, that is preferable; and if that is not possible, the positive mitzva will come and override the prohibition. In this case the leper can fulfill his duty with tweezers or a plane, and therefore it should be prohibited for him to shave with a razor. Since it was necessary for the verse to say that the positive mitzva for a leper to shave overrides the prohibition against destroying one鈥檚 beard, this proves that the mitzva can be performed only with a razor.

讜专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讬诇讬祝 诪专讗砖讜 讚转谞讬讗 专讗砖讜 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇驻讬 砖谞讗诪专 讙讘讬 谞讝讬专 转注专 诇讗 讬注讘讜专 注诇 专讗砖讜 讬讻讜诇 讗祝 谞讝讬专 诪爪讜专注 讻谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 专讗砖讜

The Gemara asks: And Rabbi Eliezer, what is his reason? From where does he derive the halakha that a leper must use a razor? He derives it from the fact that the verse states with regard to a leper: 鈥淗e shall shave all his hair off his head and his beard鈥 (Leviticus 14:9). As it is taught in a baraita: Why does the verse state: 鈥淗is head,鈥 if it already stated: 鈥淎ll his hair鈥? It is because it is stated with regard to a nazirite: 鈥淣o razor shall come upon his head鈥 (Numbers 6:5), and therefore one might have thought that the same should also apply to a nazirite who is a leper, i.e., it should be prohibited for him to shave his head even for the purification ritual for his leprosy. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淗is head,鈥 to teach that a nazirite who is a leper must shave his head with a razor. Being that a nazirite is prohibited only to use a razor, if a leper could fulfill his obligation to remove his hair using other implements, a nazirite who is a leper would not be permitted to use a razor. Therefore, it can be inferred from the halakha of a nazirite who is a leper that the only way for a leper to remove his hair is with a razor.

诪诪讗讬 讚诇诪讗 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 诪爪讜讛 拽注讘讬讚 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 转注专 诇诪讛 诇讬 诇诪讬诪专讗 讚讗驻讬诇讜 讘转注专 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讙讘讬 谞讝讬专 讻讬 注讘讬讚 讘转注专 诪讬讞讬讬讘 讙讘讬 诪爪讜专注 谞诪讬 诇讬讞讬讬讘 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚诇讗

The Gemara rejects this suggestion: And from where do you know that a leper must shave his head with a razor? Perhaps even if he actually removed it with tweezers or a plane he performs a mitzva. And if you would say: If so, why do I need the verse to teach me that he uses a razor, through the derivation of the superfluous term 鈥渉is hair,鈥 as above, one can answer: That is to say that he is permitted to shave even with a razor. As, it might enter your mind to say that since with regard to a nazirite, when he performs the act of shaving with a razor he is liable for transgressing the prohibition, with regard to a nazirite who is a leper as well, he should also be liable even if he shaved for his leprosy. The verse therefore teaches us that this is not the case, but it does not teach that a leper must use a razor.

讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讻讬 注讘讬讚 讘诪诇拽讟 讜讘专讛讬讟谞讬 诪爪讜讛 拽注讘讬讚 诪讚诇讗 讻转讘 转注专 讻专讬砖 诇拽讬砖

The Gemara rejects this suggestion: If it should enter your mind that when a leper performs his hair removal with tweezers or a plane he performs a mitzva, then from the fact that the verse did not explicitly write: Razor, it can be inferred that he is not allowed to use one, in accordance with the aforementioned principle of Reish Lakish that one may not violate a prohibition, even for the sake of a mitzva, if it is possible to perform the mitzva in a different manner. Rather, the verse must be coming to teach that the mitzva of the shaving of a leper can be fulfilled only with a razor.

讜专讘谞谉 讛讗讬 专讗砖讜 诪讗讬 讚专砖讬 讘讬讛 诪讬讘注讬 诇讛讜 诇诪讬讚讞讬 诇讗讜 讚讛拽驻讛 讚转谞讬讗 诇讗 转拽讬驻讜 驻讗转 专讗砖讻诐 讬讻讜诇 讗祝 诪爪讜专注 讻谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 专讗砖讜

The Gemara asks: And the Rabbis, with regard to this term: 鈥淗is head,鈥 which is referring to a leper, what do they learn from it? The Gemara answers: They require this term to override the prohibition of rounding the corners of the head. As it is taught in a baraita with regard to the verse 鈥淵ou shall not round the corners of your heads鈥 (Leviticus 19:27): One might have thought that the same should also apply to a leper, that it should also be prohibited for him to round the corners of his head when he shaves. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淗is head,鈥 with regard to a leper.

诇诪讛 诇讬 诇诪讻转讘 专讗砖讜 讜转讬驻讜拽 诇讬讛 诪讝拽谞讜 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 讗祝 诪爪讜专注 讻谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讝拽谞讜

The Gemara asks: Why do I need the Torah to write: 鈥淗is head鈥? And let one derive this halakha that the mitzva of shaving overrides that prohibition from the term 鈥渉is beard鈥 (Leviticus 14:9). As it is taught in a baraita: Why does the verse state: 鈥淗is beard鈥? It is because the verse states with regard to priests: 鈥淣either shall they shave off the corners of their beards鈥 (Leviticus 21:5), and therefore one might have thought that the same prohibition against shaving one鈥檚 beard should also apply to a leper. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淗is beard.鈥

诇诪讛 诇讬 诇诪讻转讘 专讗砖讜 讜诇诪讛 诇讬 诇诪讻转讘 讝拽谞讜 爪专讬讻讬 讚讗讬 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讝拽谞讜 讜诇讗 讻转讘 专讗砖讜 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讛拽驻转 讻诇 讛专讗砖 诇讗 砖诪讛 讛拽驻讛 诇讛讻讬 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 专讗砖讜

The Gemara asks: If so, why do I need the Torah to write: 鈥淗is head,鈥 and why do I need it to write: 鈥淗is beard鈥? One source should suffice to teach that the shaving of a leper overrides any prohibitions that would be violated by that act. The Gemara answers: Both verses are necessary. As, had the Merciful One written only: 鈥淗is beard,鈥 and not written: 鈥淗is head,鈥 I would say that the rounding of the entire head, i.e., shaving all the hair off one鈥檚 head and not merely the sides, is not called a prohibited rounding. If that were so, the shaving of a leper鈥檚 head would not be prohibited by Torah law. For this reason the Merciful One writes: 鈥淗is head,鈥 to teach that the shaving that the leper performs would be considered a prohibited rounding of the head had the Torah not commanded him to shave.

讜讗讬 讻转讘 专讗砖讜 讜诇讗 讻转讘 讝拽谞讜 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 诪砖诪注 转专转讬 讚讗转讬 注砖讛 讜讚讞讬 讗转 诇讗 转注砖讛 讜诪砖诪注 讚讛拽驻转 讻诇 讛专讗砖 砖诪讛 讛拽驻讛 讜讗讻转讬 讘转注专 诪谞诇谉 诇讛讻讬 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讝拽谞讜

And had the Torah written only: 鈥淗is head,鈥 and not written: 鈥淗is beard,鈥 I would say that 鈥渉is head鈥 teaches two matters. First, that a positive mitzva comes and overrides a prohibition. And it also teaches that rounding the entire head is called rounding. And still, from where do we derive that a leper must shave with a razor? For this reason the Merciful One also wrote: 鈥淗is beard,鈥 and we derive from the prohibition that bars priests from destroying their beards that the removal of the beard involves the use of a razor.

讜专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讚讗转讬 注砖讛 讜讚讞讬 讗转 诇讗 转注砖讛 诪谞诇讬讛 讬诇讬祝 诪讙讚讬诇讬诐 讚转谞讬讗 诇讗 转诇讘砖 砖注讟谞讝

The Gemara asks: And Rabbi Eliezer, from where does he derive the general principle that a positive mitzva will come and override a prohibition? The Gemara answers: He derives it from the mitzva of ritual fringes. As it is taught in a baraita: This verse: 鈥淵ou shall not wear diverse kinds of wool and linen鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:11),

Scroll To Top