Nazir 39b (לט:) — the Talmud in English

Their whitening

the roots of their strands

[the roots of their hairs—nima means “strand”], when their hair grows, their hairs are white at the bottom, their original color.

Infer from this Rabbi’s statement:

And therefore the roots of the hair are white because they are new and have not yet been dyed.

And we conclude: Indeed,

infer from this

that the hair grows from its bottom.

And we challenge this:

But if so, what of that which was taught in a beraita: “

A nazirite whose hair was shaved by bandits

and they left enough hair for him to bend its tip to its root does not invalidate his count”?

This is difficult:

And if it enters your mind

that, as we proved, the hair

grows from the bottom—

should this not invalidate his count!?

As explained above, the practical consequence of this uncertainty concerns invalidation through shaving when enough hair was left to bend its tip to its root: If the hair grows from its bottom, since this is not the hair that he had at the time he accepted his naziriteship, his count should be invalidated.

Earlier, in the Mishna on folio 16a, we learned: “One who says: ‘I am hereby a nazirite,’ and becomes impure on the thirtieth day [before bringing his offerings], invalidates everything. Rabbi Eliezer says: He invalidates only seven days.”

The explanation of their dispute according to Rav Mattana on folio 5 is as follows:

The opinion of the Sages: Since he is still within his naziriteship, which is thirty days, he invalidates everything, like any other nazirite who becomes impure during the count of his naziriteship, in which case he invalidates everything. And although had he brought his offerings we would say that part of the day is like the entire day, nevertheless, we do not say that part of the day is like the entire day with regard to invalidation, treating him as though he became impure on the thirty-first day. Rather, he invalidates everything, since he did not complete his entire naziriteship in purity.

The opinion of Rabbi Eliezer: Even with regard to invalidation, we say that part of the day is like the entire day. If so, he is found to have become impure after the completion of the days of his naziriteship; therefore, he invalidates only seven days, so that he may become pure and perform the “purification shaving” while pure.

And we answer: This beraita—which states that if he left enough hair to bend its tip to its root, the shaving does not invalidate his count—is discussing

a case where they shaved him after the completion

of the days of his naziriteship, on the thirtieth day of his naziriteship. Only on this day does shaving in this manner not invalidate his count, as the Gemara proceeds to explain.

And whose opinion is this

[who is the tanna of the beraita]?

It is Rabbi Eliezer’s—

And it follows his opinion,

as Rabbi Eliezer said

with regard to invalidation through impurity:

Any

nazirite who becomes impure

after the completion,

that is, on the thirtieth day,

seven

days alone he

invalidates

[so that he can first become pure through the sprinkling on the third and seventh days], but he does not invalidate all the preceding days.

And according to his opinion, even if they shaved him on the day of completion, he invalidates not thirty days but only seven days, as the Gemara proceeds to explain. Consequently, if he was not shaved completely but enough remained for him to bend its tip to its root, he does not invalidate his count at all, as the Gemara proceeds to explain all of this.

And we explain:

What is the reason for Rabbi Eliezer’s opinion

[that is, the tanna of the beraita in which Rabbi Eliezer was identified]? How does the law of shaving on the day of completion, when enough hair remained to bend its tip to its root, depend on the law of invalidation for seven days through impurity on the day of completion? The Gemara explains: Since on the thirtieth day, which is the day suitable for the shaving of the mitzva, he had hair of thirty days’ growth, it follows that the time suitable for shaving had passed, and thereafter we are not concerned that he was shaved.

According to the strict law, we should say that he need not wait at all; but he must wait seven days because he

derives the purification shaving

on the day of completion—that is, invalidation through a shaving performed in purity—

from the impurity shaving

on the day of completion—that is, from invalidation through impurity:

Just as the impurity shaving requires seven days, so too the purification shaving requires seven days.

Just as one who becomes impure on the day of completion adds seven days to the count of his naziriteship, so too one who is shaved on the day of completion adds seven days to the count of his naziriteship. And since if he was shaved on the thirtieth day he waits only seven days, it follows that if he was shaved on this day and enough hair remained for him to bend its tip to its root, he does not invalidate his count at all—

And

because

it is established for the Sages that every seven days the hair grows

[hair]

enough for its tip to be bent to its root

[it is known to the Sages that in seven days the hair grows enough for its tip to be bent to its root].

And since on the day of completion he invalidates only seven days, which correspond to the growth of hair sufficient for its tip to be bent to its root, therefore, if from the outset enough remained for its tip to be bent to its root, he does not invalidate his count at all.

We learned in the Mishna: A nazirite who shaved, whether with a razor or with scissors, or who clipped even any amount, is liable:

a. In a beraita below [cited on this page], we learned: “A razor shall not pass over his head.” I have derived only a razor. If he plucked or pulled out the hair, from where do I derive that this is also prohibited?

The verse states: “It shall not pass over his head.”

The intent of the beraita is to say: Do not say that the prohibition applies specifically to a razor; rather, anything that removes the hair is included. Nevertheless, it must be like a razor, that is, until it cuts the hair at its root [and this is the opinion of our Mishna].

It is further evident from the sugya below, on folio 41a, that Rabbi Eliezer holds that one is liable only for an actual razor, and not for all other means of hair removal.

The Sages taught:

It is written in the Torah, in the passage concerning a nazirite: “A razor shall not pass over his head.” Since the Torah states

“

a razor

shall not pass over his head”—

I have derived

only that it is prohibited for a nazirite and that he is liable to receive lashes

only

for a shaving in which the nazirite shaved with a

razor

or with anything similar to it—that is, he shaved the hair close to its root—for these too he is prohibited, since they are included through the phrase “It shall not pass over his head.”

But if he

plucked

the hair by hand, or

pulled it out

with a depilatory substance, or

clipped

it by hand

even any amount,

that is, he did not shave the hair close to its root—

from where

do I derive that although he does not receive lashes because of “A razor shall not pass over his head,” he is nevertheless prohibited?

The verse states: “

He shall be holy; he shall let the growth of the hair of his head grow wild.”

That is, although he did not violate a negative commandment, he nevertheless nullified the positive mitzva of “He shall be holy; he shall let the growth of the hair of his head grow wild,”

the statement of Rabbi Yoshiyya.

Rabbi Yonatan says: “

A razor”—

I have derived only an actual razor,

but if he

pulled out or plucked

or

clipped

even if he shaved the hair at its root in a manner like a razor, he is

exempt,

since it is stated: “A razor.”

And we challenge Rabbi Yonatan:

But it is written: “

He shall be holy;

he shall let the growth of the hair of his head grow wild.” If so, he should be prohibited even when using other means of hair removal, and even when he did not shave the hair at its root—because of the positive commandment!?

And we answer: Rabbi Yonatan’s opinion is that the positive commandment applies only to that which is prohibited to him by the negative commandment. The positive commandment was written only

to teach that if he shaves it with a razor, he is subject to both a positive and a negative commandment

[one who shaves with a razor, or in a manner like a razor, violates a positive commandment in addition to the negative commandment].

Another beraita was taught: “

A razor,”

I have derived only

if he shaved with an actual

razor

itself.

If he plucked

by hand,

pulled out

with a depilatory substance, or

clipped

by hand

even any amount,

that is, even a single hair,

from where

do I derive that he is liable to receive lashes even though he did not shave with a razor?

The verse states: “It shall not pass over his head.”

That is: Since the Torah did not say, “He shall not shave with a razor,” but said, “It shall not pass over his head,” this indicates that all means of hair removal are included. Nevertheless, only shaving in a manner like a razor is included, because the Torah said “a razor.”

The beraita further explains:

And since in the end we include everything

even something other than a razor,

what does the verse “A razor shall not pass over his head” come to teach?

Why did the Torah mention the term “razor”? If the Torah came only to say that the shaving must be in a manner like a razor, it should have said: “That which destroys shall not pass over his head”!?

And the beraita explains:

since we have not learned concerning the

final shaving -

of the mitzva -

that it is with a razor,

therefore “razor” was stated, to teach that it must be with a razor and not with other means of hair removal.