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

Today's Daf Yomi

October 19, 2015 | 讜壮 讘诪专讞砖讜谉 转砖注状讜

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Nazir 58

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 讜转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 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

one might have thought that even a leper should likewise be prohibited from rounding off his head. The verse therefore specifically states 鈥渉is head鈥 to teach that the mitzva for a leper to remove all the hair of his head overrides the prohibition against rounding one鈥檚 head. And it was taught in another baraita: Why must the verse state: 鈥淗is head,鈥 with regard to a leper? Since it states, with regard to a nazirite: 鈥淣o razor shall come upon his head鈥 (Numbers 6:5), one might have thought that even a nazirite leper should likewise be prohibited from shaving upon his purification. Therefore the verse states: 鈥淗is head,鈥 from which it is derived that a nazirite who contracted leprosy must shave his head like any other leper.

诪讗讬 诇讗讜 转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪谞讝讬专 拽住讘专 讛拽驻转 讻诇 讛专讗砖 诇讗 砖诪讛 讛拽驻讛 讜讻讬 讗转讗 拽专讗 诇诪讬讚讞讬 讗转 诇讗 转注砖讛 讜注砖讛 讜讗讬讚讱 住讘专 讛拽驻转 讻诇 讛专讗砖 砖诪讛 讛拽驻讛 讜讻讬 讗转讗 拽专讗 诇诪讬讚讞讬 诇讗讜 讙专讬讚讗

The Gemara explains: What, is it not correct to say that this is a dispute between tanna鈥檌m? According to the one who says that the additional term 鈥渉is head鈥 is to counter a possible prohibition derived from the case of a nazirite, he holds that rounding the entire head is not called rounding, and therefore there is no need for a verse to teach that a leper can shave all the hair off his head. And when the verse 鈥淗e shall shave all his hair; his head鈥 comes, it comes to override both the prohibition: 鈥淣o razor shall come upon his head,鈥 and the positive mitzva stated with regard to a nazirite: 鈥淗e shall be sacred, he shall let the locks of the hair of his head grow long鈥 (Numbers 6:5). And the other tanna holds that rounding the entire head is called rounding, and consequently, when the verse comes, it serves to override only the prohibition against rounding one鈥檚 head.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讛拽驻转 讻诇 讛专讗砖 诇讗 砖诪讛 讛拽驻讛 讜讻讬 讗转讗 拽专讗 讻讙讜谉 砖讛拽讬祝 讜诇讘住讜祝 讙讬诇讞 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬诇讜 讙诇讞讬讛 讘讞讚 讝讬诪谞讗 诇讗 诪讬讞讬讬讘 讻讬 讛拽讬祝 讜诇讘住讜祝 讙讬诇讞 谞诪讬 诇讗 诪讬讞讬讬讘

Rava said in refutation of this proof: No; it is possible that everyone agrees that rounding the entire head is not called rounding, even the tanna who maintains that the purpose of the verse is to permit a leper to round his head. And when the verse comes, it serves to address a particular case, such as one in which he rounded off only the corners of the head and ultimately shaved off the rest of his hair. Although shaving only the corners of one鈥檚 head is prohibited by the Torah, in this instance he is exempt. The reason is that since if he shaved his entire head at one time he would not be liable, then if he rounded off his head and ultimately shaved he is also not liable. Since a leper is permitted to shave all of his head, he can do so in any manner he chooses.

讜诪讬 讻转讘 拽专讗 讛讻讬 讜讛讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 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 讬讘讜讗 注砖讛 讜讬讚讞讛 讗转 诇讗 转注砖讛

The Gemara raises a difficulty with this explanation: And does the verse write this? Is it permitted unnecessarily to transgress a prohibition ab initio? But didn鈥檛 Reish Lakish say: Any place that you find positive mitzvot and prohibitions 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? If it is not prohibited to round the entire head, the leper can shave his hair in a permitted manner, and the Torah would not have allowed him to do so in a way that involves the violation of a prohibition.

讗诇讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讛拽驻转 讻诇 讛专讗砖 砖诪讛 讛拽驻讛 讜诪讗谉 讚诪讜拽讬诐 诇拽专讗 诇诪讬讚讞讬 诇讗 转注砖讛 讜注砖讛 诇讗讜 讙专讬讚讗 诪谞诇讬讛

Rather, the Gemara retracts its previous explanation and states the opposite. It is that everyone agrees that rounding the entire head is called rounding. If so, the baraita that states that the verse: 鈥淗e shall shave all his hair; his head鈥 (Leviticus 14:9), comes to permit the rounding of a leper鈥檚 entire head is easily understood, as it is derived from here that a positive mitzva overrides a prohibition. But according to the one who establishes the verse 鈥淗e shall shave all his hair; his head鈥 as coming to override the prohibition and the positive mitzva of a nazirite, from where does he derive that a positive mitzva overrides only a prohibition?

讬诇讬祝 诪讙讚讬诇讬诐 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 诇讗 转诇讘砖 砖注讟谞讝 讜转谞讬讗 诇讗 转诇讘砖 砖注讟谞讝 讛讗 讙讚讬诇讬诐 转注砖讛 诇讱 诪讛诐

The Gemara answers: He derives it from the case of ritual fringes. How so? As the verse states: 鈥淵ou shall not wear diverse kinds, wool and linen together鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:11), and it is taught in a baraita that although the command 鈥淵ou shall not wear diverse kinds鈥 applies to most cases, the juxtaposed verse: 鈥淵ou shall make for you fringes鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:12), teaches that one may prepare ritual fringes even from diverse kinds of wool and linen. This teaches that the positive mitzva of ritual fringes overrides the prohibition of diverse kinds.

讜诪讗谉 讚谞驻拽讗 诇讬讛 诪专讗砖讜 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 谞驻拽讗 诇讬讛 诪讙讚讬诇讬诐 讗诪专 诇讱 诇讻讚专讘讗 讛讜讗 讚讗转讗

The Gemara asks: And the tanna who derives the principle that a positive mitzva overrides a prohibition from 鈥渉is head鈥 stated with regard to a leper, what is the reason that he does not derive it from the verse that deals with ritual fringes? Why does he require another source? The Gemara answers: He could have said to you that the verse concerning ritual fringes does not teach that principle, as it comes for that which Rava said.

讚专讘讗 专诪讬 讻转讬讘 讜谞转谞讜 注诇 爪讬爪转 讛讻谞祝 诪讬谉 讻谞祝 驻转讬诇 转讻诇转 讜讻转讬讘 爪诪专 讜驻砖转讬诐 讬讞讚讜

As Rava raises a contradiction: It is written: 鈥淎nd that they put on the fringe of each corner a thread of sky blue鈥 (Numbers 15:38). The phrase 鈥渢he fringe of each corner鈥 indicates that ritual fringes must be of the same type as the corner of the robe itself, upon which they must place 鈥渁 thread of sky blue.鈥 And yet it is written: 鈥淵ou shall not wear diverse kinds, wool and linen together鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:11). The juxtaposition of these two verses teaches that ritual fringes must be made from wool and linen.

讛讗 讻讬爪讚 爪诪专 讜驻砖转讬诐 驻讜讟专讬诐 讘讬谉 讘诪讬谞谉 讘讬谉 砖诇讗 讘诪讬谞谉 砖讗专 诪讬谞讬谉 讘诪讬谞谉 驻讜讟专讬谉 砖诇讗 讘诪讬谞谉 讗讬谉 驻讜讟专讬谉

How so? How can ritual fringes be made from the same material as the garment itself and also from wool and linen? The answer is that ritual fringes of wool and linen exempt a garment and fulfill the obligation of ritual fringes whether the garment is of their own type, i.e., wool and linen, or whether it is not of their own type, i.e., all other materials. By contrast, with regard to ritual fringes of other types of materials, they exempt a garment of their own type; but they do not exempt a garment that is not of their type. According to this, the verse juxtaposing ritual fringes to diverse kinds serves to teach that ritual fringes made of wool and linen exempt any garment, not to teach that a positive mitzva overrides a prohibition.

讜讛讗讬 转谞讗 讚诪驻讬拽 诇专讗砖讜 诇诇讗讜 讙专讬讚讗 讚讗转讬 注砖讛 讜讚讞讬 讗转 诇讗 转注砖讛 讜注砖讛 诪谞诇谉 谞驻拽讗 诇讬讛 诪讝拽谞讜

The Gemara continues this line of inquiry: And according to this tanna, who derives from the term 鈥渉is head鈥 that a positive mitzva overrides only a prohibition, from where do we derive the halakha that the positive mitzva of a leper鈥檚 shaving comes and overrides the prohibition and the positive mitzva of a nazirite? From where does this tanna learn that a nazirite who contracted leprosy is obligated to shave? The Gemara answers: He derives it from the verse: 鈥淗e shall shave all his hair; his head and his beard鈥 (Leviticus 14:9).

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 讻讛谉 诪爪讜专注 讻谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讝拽谞讜

As it is taught in a baraita: Why must the verse state: 鈥淗is beard鈥? After all, a beard is already included in the phrase 鈥渁ll his hair.鈥 The baraita answers: Since it is stated, with regard to priests: 鈥淣either shall they shave off the corners of their beard鈥 (Leviticus 21:5), one might have thought that even a priest who is a leper is included in this prohibition against shaving his beard. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淗is beard鈥 in connection to a leper.

讜诪讗谉 讚诪驻讬拽 诇讬讛 诇专讗砖讜 诇注砖讛 讜诇讗 转注砖讛 诇讬诇祝 诪讝拽谞讜 讜诇讬讟注诪讬讱 讚拽讬讬诪讗 诇谉 讘注诇诪讗

The Gemara asks: And the one who derives from 鈥渉is head鈥 that the mitzva of shaving overrides both the positive mitzva and prohibition of a nazirite, let him derive this principle from 鈥渉is beard.鈥 The Gemara refutes this suggestion: And according to your reasoning, that the term 鈥渉is beard鈥 teaches that a positive mitzva overrides the prohibition and positive mitzva of a nazirite, that which we maintain generally,

讚诇讗 讗转讬 注砖讛 讜讚讞讬 讗转 诇讗 转注砖讛 讜注砖讛 诇讬诇祝 诪讻讛谉 讚讚讞讬

that a positive mitzva does not come and override a prohibition and a positive mitzva, let him derive from the fact that a leprous priest must shave that this mitzva does override a prohibition and another positive mitzva.

讗诇讗 诪讻讛谉 诇讗 讬诇驻讬谞谉 诪讛 诇讻讛谉 砖讻谉 诇讗讜 砖讗讬谞讜 砖讜讛 讘讻诇 谞讝讬专 诪讻讛谉 谞诪讬 诇讗 讬诇讬祝 砖讻谉 诇讗讜 砖讗讬谞讜 砖讜讛 讘讻诇

Rather, he would explain that we do not derive other cases of the Torah from the halakha of a priest, for the following reason: What is different about the prohibition of a priest is that it is a prohibition that is not equally applicable to all, i.e., the prohibitions of a priest do not apply to Israelites. For the same reason, the case of a nazirite also cannot be derived from that of a priest, as the prohibition of a priest is a prohibition that is not equally applicable to all, in contrast to that of a nazirite. Consequently, the derivation from 鈥渉is head鈥 is necessary to teach that the shaving of a leper overrides the prohibition stated with regard to a nazirite.

讜诪讗谉 讚诪讜拽讬诐 诇讛讗讬 专讗砖讜 讘谞讝讬专 诇诪讛 诇讬 讝拽谞讜

The Gemara turns its attention to the other opinion: And according to the one who establishes this verse: 鈥淗e shall shave all his hair; his head and his beard鈥 (Leviticus 14:9), as referring to a nazirite, i.e., he derives from this verse the principle that in certain cases, including that of a leprous priest, a positive mitzva overrides a prohibition and a positive mitzva, why do I need the term 鈥渉is beard鈥?

诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讻讚转谞讬讗 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 讻讛谉 诪爪讜专注 讻谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讝拽谞讜

The Gemara answers: He requires it for that which is taught in a baraita with regard to the shaving of a leper, which must be performed with a razor: Why must the verse state: 鈥淗is beard,鈥 as it already stated that he shaves all his hair? Since it is stated: 鈥淣either shall they shave off the corners of their beard鈥 (Leviticus 21:5), one might have thought that even a priest who is a leper is included in the prohibition against shaving. The verse therefore states: 鈥淗is beard,鈥 to teach that a leprous priest must shave his beard as well.

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 讗祝 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 讗讬 诇讗 转砖讞讬转 讬讻讜诇 诇讬拽讟谉 讘诪诇拽讟 讜讘专讛讬讟谞讬 讞讬讬讘

And from where do we derive that a leper must shave with a razor? As it is taught in a baraita: 鈥淣either shall they shave off the corners of their beard鈥 (Leviticus 21:5). One might have thought that priests should be liable even if they shaved their beards with scissors. The verse states: 鈥淎nd you shall not destroy the corners of your beard鈥 (Leviticus 19:27), which teaches that the prohibition applies only to the destruction of the beard from its roots. If the sole criterion is the phrase 鈥測ou shall not destroy,鈥 one might have thought that if he extracted his hair with tweezers or removed his hair with a carpenter鈥檚 plane, he should likewise be liable due to the prohibition against destroying his hair.

转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜驻讗转 讝拽谞诐 诇讗 讬讙诇讞讜 讗讬讝讜 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

The verse therefore states: 鈥淣either shall they shave off the corners of their beard.鈥 Together the two verses lead to the following conclusion: Which is the type of shaving [gilua岣] that involves destruction [hash岣ta]? You must say it is a razor. The fact that it was necessary for the Torah to permit a leper to shave his beard with a razor, notwithstanding the prohibition against using this implement, proves that the positive mitzva overrides this prohibition, as derived from the term 鈥渉is beard.鈥

讜诪讗谉 讚诪驻讬拽 诇讬讛 诇讛讗讬 专讗砖讜 诇诇讗讜 讙专讬讚讗 诇诪讛 诇讬 诇诪讬讻转讘 专讗砖讜 讜诇诪讛 诇讬 诇诪讬讻转讘 讝拽谞讜

The Gemara continues to inquire: And according to the one who derives from the term 鈥渉is head鈥 the principle that a positive mitzva overrides only a prohibition, why do I need the verse to write: 鈥淗is head,鈥 and why do I also need the same verse to write: 鈥淗is beard鈥? Once is it derived from the phrase 鈥渉is beard鈥 that a positive mitzva overrides a positive mitzva and a prohibition, the same should certainly apply to a prohibition by itself.

诪砖诪注 诇诪讬讚讞讬 诇讗讜 讙专讬讚讗 讜诪砖诪注 诇诪讬讚讞讬 诇讗 转注砖讛 讜注砖讛 讛讬诇讻讱 砖拽讜诇 讛讜讗 讜讬讘讜讗讜 砖谞讬讛谉

The Gemara answers: Both the term 鈥渉is head鈥 and the term 鈥渉is beard鈥 could come to teach the overriding of only a prohibition, and they also could teach the overriding of a prohibition and a positive mitzva. Since the verse is formulated in general terms, it includes a priest or a nazirite. Therefore, as it cannot be determined to which case the Torah is referring, it is even, i.e., equally balanced, and consequently let both terms come and teach this principle, one with regard to a nazirite, and the other with regard to a priest.

讻讛谉 诪谞讝讬专 诇讗 讬诇讬祝 砖讻谉 讬砖谞讜 讘砖讗诇讛 谞讝讬专 诪讻讛谉 诇讗 讬诇讬祝 砖讻谉 诇讗讜 砖讗讬谞讜 砖讜讛 讘讻诇 讜讘注诇诪讗 诇讗 讬诇驻讬谞谉 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 诪砖讜诐 讚讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬驻专讱 讻讚讗诪专谉

The Gemara adds that both terms are necessary, as the halakha of a priest cannot be derived from that of a nazirite, as the case of a nazirite is lenient in that it is possible to dissolve naziriteship by request from a halakhic authority. Likewise, the halakha of a nazirite cannot be derived from that of a priest, as the case of a priest involves a prohibition that is not equally applicable to all. The Gemara comments: And generally, with regard to other halakhot, we cannot derive from these two cases that a positive mitzva overrides a prohibition and a positive mitzva, due to the fact that this argument can be refuted as we said here.

讗诪专 专讘 诪讬拽诇 讗讚诐 讻诇 讙讜驻讜 讘转注专 诪讬转讬讘讬 讛诪注讘讬专 讘讬转 讛砖讞讬 讜讘讬转 讛注专讜讛 讛专讬 讝讛 诇讜拽讛

Rav said: A person who is not a nazirite may lighten his burden by removing all the hair of his body with a razor. One who feels he has too much hair may shave all of it off with a razor, apart from his beard and the corners of his head. The Gemara raises an objection against this from a baraita: A man who removes the hair of the armpit or the pubic hair is flogged for transgressing the prohibition: 鈥淎 man shall not put on a woman鈥檚 garment鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:5), as this behavior is the manner of women.

讛讗 讘转注专 讛讗 讘诪住驻专讬诐 讜讛讗 专讘 谞诪讬 讘转注专 拽讗诪专 讻注讬谉 转注专

The Gemara answers: In this case he is flogged because he shaved with a razor, whereas in that case Rav said it is permitted because he was referring to one who removes hair with scissors, an act that is not considered a prohibition. The Gemara raises a difficulty: But Rav said it is permitted with a razor as well. The Gemara answers: He did not mean an actual razor; rather, he said that one may use an implement that is similar to a razor, i.e., scissors that cut very close to the skin, in the manner of a razor.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛诪注讘讬专 讘讬转 讛砖讞讬 讜讘讬转 讛注专讜讛 诇讜拽讛 诪讬转讬讘讬 讛注讘专转 砖讬注专 讗讬谞讛 诪讚讘专讬 转讜专讛 讗诇讗 诪讚讘专讬 住讜驻专讬诐 诪讗讬 诇讜拽讛 谞诪讬 讚拽讗诪专 诪讚专讘谞谉

Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: A man who removes the hair of the armpit or the pubic hair is flogged. The Gemara raises an objection against this ruling: The removal of hair is not prohibited by Torah law but by rabbinic law. Why, then, is he liable to receive lashes? The Gemara explains: What does it mean that Rabbi Yo岣nan says that he is flogged? This means that he is flogged by rabbinic law, a punishment known as lashes for rebelliousness, for disobeying a rabbinic decree.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

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 58

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Nazir 58

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 讜转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 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

one might have thought that even a leper should likewise be prohibited from rounding off his head. The verse therefore specifically states 鈥渉is head鈥 to teach that the mitzva for a leper to remove all the hair of his head overrides the prohibition against rounding one鈥檚 head. And it was taught in another baraita: Why must the verse state: 鈥淗is head,鈥 with regard to a leper? Since it states, with regard to a nazirite: 鈥淣o razor shall come upon his head鈥 (Numbers 6:5), one might have thought that even a nazirite leper should likewise be prohibited from shaving upon his purification. Therefore the verse states: 鈥淗is head,鈥 from which it is derived that a nazirite who contracted leprosy must shave his head like any other leper.

诪讗讬 诇讗讜 转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪谞讝讬专 拽住讘专 讛拽驻转 讻诇 讛专讗砖 诇讗 砖诪讛 讛拽驻讛 讜讻讬 讗转讗 拽专讗 诇诪讬讚讞讬 讗转 诇讗 转注砖讛 讜注砖讛 讜讗讬讚讱 住讘专 讛拽驻转 讻诇 讛专讗砖 砖诪讛 讛拽驻讛 讜讻讬 讗转讗 拽专讗 诇诪讬讚讞讬 诇讗讜 讙专讬讚讗

The Gemara explains: What, is it not correct to say that this is a dispute between tanna鈥檌m? According to the one who says that the additional term 鈥渉is head鈥 is to counter a possible prohibition derived from the case of a nazirite, he holds that rounding the entire head is not called rounding, and therefore there is no need for a verse to teach that a leper can shave all the hair off his head. And when the verse 鈥淗e shall shave all his hair; his head鈥 comes, it comes to override both the prohibition: 鈥淣o razor shall come upon his head,鈥 and the positive mitzva stated with regard to a nazirite: 鈥淗e shall be sacred, he shall let the locks of the hair of his head grow long鈥 (Numbers 6:5). And the other tanna holds that rounding the entire head is called rounding, and consequently, when the verse comes, it serves to override only the prohibition against rounding one鈥檚 head.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讛拽驻转 讻诇 讛专讗砖 诇讗 砖诪讛 讛拽驻讛 讜讻讬 讗转讗 拽专讗 讻讙讜谉 砖讛拽讬祝 讜诇讘住讜祝 讙讬诇讞 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬诇讜 讙诇讞讬讛 讘讞讚 讝讬诪谞讗 诇讗 诪讬讞讬讬讘 讻讬 讛拽讬祝 讜诇讘住讜祝 讙讬诇讞 谞诪讬 诇讗 诪讬讞讬讬讘

Rava said in refutation of this proof: No; it is possible that everyone agrees that rounding the entire head is not called rounding, even the tanna who maintains that the purpose of the verse is to permit a leper to round his head. And when the verse comes, it serves to address a particular case, such as one in which he rounded off only the corners of the head and ultimately shaved off the rest of his hair. Although shaving only the corners of one鈥檚 head is prohibited by the Torah, in this instance he is exempt. The reason is that since if he shaved his entire head at one time he would not be liable, then if he rounded off his head and ultimately shaved he is also not liable. Since a leper is permitted to shave all of his head, he can do so in any manner he chooses.

讜诪讬 讻转讘 拽专讗 讛讻讬 讜讛讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 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 讬讘讜讗 注砖讛 讜讬讚讞讛 讗转 诇讗 转注砖讛

The Gemara raises a difficulty with this explanation: And does the verse write this? Is it permitted unnecessarily to transgress a prohibition ab initio? But didn鈥檛 Reish Lakish say: Any place that you find positive mitzvot and prohibitions 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? If it is not prohibited to round the entire head, the leper can shave his hair in a permitted manner, and the Torah would not have allowed him to do so in a way that involves the violation of a prohibition.

讗诇讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讛拽驻转 讻诇 讛专讗砖 砖诪讛 讛拽驻讛 讜诪讗谉 讚诪讜拽讬诐 诇拽专讗 诇诪讬讚讞讬 诇讗 转注砖讛 讜注砖讛 诇讗讜 讙专讬讚讗 诪谞诇讬讛

Rather, the Gemara retracts its previous explanation and states the opposite. It is that everyone agrees that rounding the entire head is called rounding. If so, the baraita that states that the verse: 鈥淗e shall shave all his hair; his head鈥 (Leviticus 14:9), comes to permit the rounding of a leper鈥檚 entire head is easily understood, as it is derived from here that a positive mitzva overrides a prohibition. But according to the one who establishes the verse 鈥淗e shall shave all his hair; his head鈥 as coming to override the prohibition and the positive mitzva of a nazirite, from where does he derive that a positive mitzva overrides only a prohibition?

讬诇讬祝 诪讙讚讬诇讬诐 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 诇讗 转诇讘砖 砖注讟谞讝 讜转谞讬讗 诇讗 转诇讘砖 砖注讟谞讝 讛讗 讙讚讬诇讬诐 转注砖讛 诇讱 诪讛诐

The Gemara answers: He derives it from the case of ritual fringes. How so? As the verse states: 鈥淵ou shall not wear diverse kinds, wool and linen together鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:11), and it is taught in a baraita that although the command 鈥淵ou shall not wear diverse kinds鈥 applies to most cases, the juxtaposed verse: 鈥淵ou shall make for you fringes鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:12), teaches that one may prepare ritual fringes even from diverse kinds of wool and linen. This teaches that the positive mitzva of ritual fringes overrides the prohibition of diverse kinds.

讜诪讗谉 讚谞驻拽讗 诇讬讛 诪专讗砖讜 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 谞驻拽讗 诇讬讛 诪讙讚讬诇讬诐 讗诪专 诇讱 诇讻讚专讘讗 讛讜讗 讚讗转讗

The Gemara asks: And the tanna who derives the principle that a positive mitzva overrides a prohibition from 鈥渉is head鈥 stated with regard to a leper, what is the reason that he does not derive it from the verse that deals with ritual fringes? Why does he require another source? The Gemara answers: He could have said to you that the verse concerning ritual fringes does not teach that principle, as it comes for that which Rava said.

讚专讘讗 专诪讬 讻转讬讘 讜谞转谞讜 注诇 爪讬爪转 讛讻谞祝 诪讬谉 讻谞祝 驻转讬诇 转讻诇转 讜讻转讬讘 爪诪专 讜驻砖转讬诐 讬讞讚讜

As Rava raises a contradiction: It is written: 鈥淎nd that they put on the fringe of each corner a thread of sky blue鈥 (Numbers 15:38). The phrase 鈥渢he fringe of each corner鈥 indicates that ritual fringes must be of the same type as the corner of the robe itself, upon which they must place 鈥渁 thread of sky blue.鈥 And yet it is written: 鈥淵ou shall not wear diverse kinds, wool and linen together鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:11). The juxtaposition of these two verses teaches that ritual fringes must be made from wool and linen.

讛讗 讻讬爪讚 爪诪专 讜驻砖转讬诐 驻讜讟专讬诐 讘讬谉 讘诪讬谞谉 讘讬谉 砖诇讗 讘诪讬谞谉 砖讗专 诪讬谞讬谉 讘诪讬谞谉 驻讜讟专讬谉 砖诇讗 讘诪讬谞谉 讗讬谉 驻讜讟专讬谉

How so? How can ritual fringes be made from the same material as the garment itself and also from wool and linen? The answer is that ritual fringes of wool and linen exempt a garment and fulfill the obligation of ritual fringes whether the garment is of their own type, i.e., wool and linen, or whether it is not of their own type, i.e., all other materials. By contrast, with regard to ritual fringes of other types of materials, they exempt a garment of their own type; but they do not exempt a garment that is not of their type. According to this, the verse juxtaposing ritual fringes to diverse kinds serves to teach that ritual fringes made of wool and linen exempt any garment, not to teach that a positive mitzva overrides a prohibition.

讜讛讗讬 转谞讗 讚诪驻讬拽 诇专讗砖讜 诇诇讗讜 讙专讬讚讗 讚讗转讬 注砖讛 讜讚讞讬 讗转 诇讗 转注砖讛 讜注砖讛 诪谞诇谉 谞驻拽讗 诇讬讛 诪讝拽谞讜

The Gemara continues this line of inquiry: And according to this tanna, who derives from the term 鈥渉is head鈥 that a positive mitzva overrides only a prohibition, from where do we derive the halakha that the positive mitzva of a leper鈥檚 shaving comes and overrides the prohibition and the positive mitzva of a nazirite? From where does this tanna learn that a nazirite who contracted leprosy is obligated to shave? The Gemara answers: He derives it from the verse: 鈥淗e shall shave all his hair; his head and his beard鈥 (Leviticus 14:9).

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 讻讛谉 诪爪讜专注 讻谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讝拽谞讜

As it is taught in a baraita: Why must the verse state: 鈥淗is beard鈥? After all, a beard is already included in the phrase 鈥渁ll his hair.鈥 The baraita answers: Since it is stated, with regard to priests: 鈥淣either shall they shave off the corners of their beard鈥 (Leviticus 21:5), one might have thought that even a priest who is a leper is included in this prohibition against shaving his beard. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淗is beard鈥 in connection to a leper.

讜诪讗谉 讚诪驻讬拽 诇讬讛 诇专讗砖讜 诇注砖讛 讜诇讗 转注砖讛 诇讬诇祝 诪讝拽谞讜 讜诇讬讟注诪讬讱 讚拽讬讬诪讗 诇谉 讘注诇诪讗

The Gemara asks: And the one who derives from 鈥渉is head鈥 that the mitzva of shaving overrides both the positive mitzva and prohibition of a nazirite, let him derive this principle from 鈥渉is beard.鈥 The Gemara refutes this suggestion: And according to your reasoning, that the term 鈥渉is beard鈥 teaches that a positive mitzva overrides the prohibition and positive mitzva of a nazirite, that which we maintain generally,

讚诇讗 讗转讬 注砖讛 讜讚讞讬 讗转 诇讗 转注砖讛 讜注砖讛 诇讬诇祝 诪讻讛谉 讚讚讞讬

that a positive mitzva does not come and override a prohibition and a positive mitzva, let him derive from the fact that a leprous priest must shave that this mitzva does override a prohibition and another positive mitzva.

讗诇讗 诪讻讛谉 诇讗 讬诇驻讬谞谉 诪讛 诇讻讛谉 砖讻谉 诇讗讜 砖讗讬谞讜 砖讜讛 讘讻诇 谞讝讬专 诪讻讛谉 谞诪讬 诇讗 讬诇讬祝 砖讻谉 诇讗讜 砖讗讬谞讜 砖讜讛 讘讻诇

Rather, he would explain that we do not derive other cases of the Torah from the halakha of a priest, for the following reason: What is different about the prohibition of a priest is that it is a prohibition that is not equally applicable to all, i.e., the prohibitions of a priest do not apply to Israelites. For the same reason, the case of a nazirite also cannot be derived from that of a priest, as the prohibition of a priest is a prohibition that is not equally applicable to all, in contrast to that of a nazirite. Consequently, the derivation from 鈥渉is head鈥 is necessary to teach that the shaving of a leper overrides the prohibition stated with regard to a nazirite.

讜诪讗谉 讚诪讜拽讬诐 诇讛讗讬 专讗砖讜 讘谞讝讬专 诇诪讛 诇讬 讝拽谞讜

The Gemara turns its attention to the other opinion: And according to the one who establishes this verse: 鈥淗e shall shave all his hair; his head and his beard鈥 (Leviticus 14:9), as referring to a nazirite, i.e., he derives from this verse the principle that in certain cases, including that of a leprous priest, a positive mitzva overrides a prohibition and a positive mitzva, why do I need the term 鈥渉is beard鈥?

诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讻讚转谞讬讗 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 讻讛谉 诪爪讜专注 讻谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讝拽谞讜

The Gemara answers: He requires it for that which is taught in a baraita with regard to the shaving of a leper, which must be performed with a razor: Why must the verse state: 鈥淗is beard,鈥 as it already stated that he shaves all his hair? Since it is stated: 鈥淣either shall they shave off the corners of their beard鈥 (Leviticus 21:5), one might have thought that even a priest who is a leper is included in the prohibition against shaving. The verse therefore states: 鈥淗is beard,鈥 to teach that a leprous priest must shave his beard as well.

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 讗祝 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 讗讬 诇讗 转砖讞讬转 讬讻讜诇 诇讬拽讟谉 讘诪诇拽讟 讜讘专讛讬讟谞讬 讞讬讬讘

And from where do we derive that a leper must shave with a razor? As it is taught in a baraita: 鈥淣either shall they shave off the corners of their beard鈥 (Leviticus 21:5). One might have thought that priests should be liable even if they shaved their beards with scissors. The verse states: 鈥淎nd you shall not destroy the corners of your beard鈥 (Leviticus 19:27), which teaches that the prohibition applies only to the destruction of the beard from its roots. If the sole criterion is the phrase 鈥測ou shall not destroy,鈥 one might have thought that if he extracted his hair with tweezers or removed his hair with a carpenter鈥檚 plane, he should likewise be liable due to the prohibition against destroying his hair.

转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜驻讗转 讝拽谞诐 诇讗 讬讙诇讞讜 讗讬讝讜 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

The verse therefore states: 鈥淣either shall they shave off the corners of their beard.鈥 Together the two verses lead to the following conclusion: Which is the type of shaving [gilua岣] that involves destruction [hash岣ta]? You must say it is a razor. The fact that it was necessary for the Torah to permit a leper to shave his beard with a razor, notwithstanding the prohibition against using this implement, proves that the positive mitzva overrides this prohibition, as derived from the term 鈥渉is beard.鈥

讜诪讗谉 讚诪驻讬拽 诇讬讛 诇讛讗讬 专讗砖讜 诇诇讗讜 讙专讬讚讗 诇诪讛 诇讬 诇诪讬讻转讘 专讗砖讜 讜诇诪讛 诇讬 诇诪讬讻转讘 讝拽谞讜

The Gemara continues to inquire: And according to the one who derives from the term 鈥渉is head鈥 the principle that a positive mitzva overrides only a prohibition, why do I need the verse to write: 鈥淗is head,鈥 and why do I also need the same verse to write: 鈥淗is beard鈥? Once is it derived from the phrase 鈥渉is beard鈥 that a positive mitzva overrides a positive mitzva and a prohibition, the same should certainly apply to a prohibition by itself.

诪砖诪注 诇诪讬讚讞讬 诇讗讜 讙专讬讚讗 讜诪砖诪注 诇诪讬讚讞讬 诇讗 转注砖讛 讜注砖讛 讛讬诇讻讱 砖拽讜诇 讛讜讗 讜讬讘讜讗讜 砖谞讬讛谉

The Gemara answers: Both the term 鈥渉is head鈥 and the term 鈥渉is beard鈥 could come to teach the overriding of only a prohibition, and they also could teach the overriding of a prohibition and a positive mitzva. Since the verse is formulated in general terms, it includes a priest or a nazirite. Therefore, as it cannot be determined to which case the Torah is referring, it is even, i.e., equally balanced, and consequently let both terms come and teach this principle, one with regard to a nazirite, and the other with regard to a priest.

讻讛谉 诪谞讝讬专 诇讗 讬诇讬祝 砖讻谉 讬砖谞讜 讘砖讗诇讛 谞讝讬专 诪讻讛谉 诇讗 讬诇讬祝 砖讻谉 诇讗讜 砖讗讬谞讜 砖讜讛 讘讻诇 讜讘注诇诪讗 诇讗 讬诇驻讬谞谉 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 诪砖讜诐 讚讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬驻专讱 讻讚讗诪专谉

The Gemara adds that both terms are necessary, as the halakha of a priest cannot be derived from that of a nazirite, as the case of a nazirite is lenient in that it is possible to dissolve naziriteship by request from a halakhic authority. Likewise, the halakha of a nazirite cannot be derived from that of a priest, as the case of a priest involves a prohibition that is not equally applicable to all. The Gemara comments: And generally, with regard to other halakhot, we cannot derive from these two cases that a positive mitzva overrides a prohibition and a positive mitzva, due to the fact that this argument can be refuted as we said here.

讗诪专 专讘 诪讬拽诇 讗讚诐 讻诇 讙讜驻讜 讘转注专 诪讬转讬讘讬 讛诪注讘讬专 讘讬转 讛砖讞讬 讜讘讬转 讛注专讜讛 讛专讬 讝讛 诇讜拽讛

Rav said: A person who is not a nazirite may lighten his burden by removing all the hair of his body with a razor. One who feels he has too much hair may shave all of it off with a razor, apart from his beard and the corners of his head. The Gemara raises an objection against this from a baraita: A man who removes the hair of the armpit or the pubic hair is flogged for transgressing the prohibition: 鈥淎 man shall not put on a woman鈥檚 garment鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:5), as this behavior is the manner of women.

讛讗 讘转注专 讛讗 讘诪住驻专讬诐 讜讛讗 专讘 谞诪讬 讘转注专 拽讗诪专 讻注讬谉 转注专

The Gemara answers: In this case he is flogged because he shaved with a razor, whereas in that case Rav said it is permitted because he was referring to one who removes hair with scissors, an act that is not considered a prohibition. The Gemara raises a difficulty: But Rav said it is permitted with a razor as well. The Gemara answers: He did not mean an actual razor; rather, he said that one may use an implement that is similar to a razor, i.e., scissors that cut very close to the skin, in the manner of a razor.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛诪注讘讬专 讘讬转 讛砖讞讬 讜讘讬转 讛注专讜讛 诇讜拽讛 诪讬转讬讘讬 讛注讘专转 砖讬注专 讗讬谞讛 诪讚讘专讬 转讜专讛 讗诇讗 诪讚讘专讬 住讜驻专讬诐 诪讗讬 诇讜拽讛 谞诪讬 讚拽讗诪专 诪讚专讘谞谉

Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: A man who removes the hair of the armpit or the pubic hair is flogged. The Gemara raises an objection against this ruling: The removal of hair is not prohibited by Torah law but by rabbinic law. Why, then, is he liable to receive lashes? The Gemara explains: What does it mean that Rabbi Yo岣nan says that he is flogged? This means that he is flogged by rabbinic law, a punishment known as lashes for rebelliousness, for disobeying a rabbinic decree.

Scroll To Top