Nazir 39b — the Talmud in English

whitening ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location")

the roots of their hairs

[the main parts of their hairs, in the language of “a hair”], when their hair grows, their hairs are white at their bottoms, like the color of their creation.

infer from this Rabbi’s wording,

and therefore the roots of the hair are white, since they are new and have not yet been colored.

And we conclude: indeed

infer from this

that the hair grows from its bottom.

And we challenge:

but if that is so, that which was taught: “

A nazirite whose hair was shaved by bandits,

and they left in it enough to bend its tip to its root, does not invalidate,”

let it be difficult:

And if it enters your mind

as we proved, that the hair

grows from its bottom—

should he not invalidate it!?

And as was explained above, the practical consequence of this doubt concerns invalidation through shaving when he left in the hair enough to bend its tip to its root: if the hair grows from its bottom, since this is not the hair that he had upon accepting naziriteship, he invalidates it.

Above, in the Mishna on page 16a, we learned: “One who said, ‘I hereby become a nazirite,’ and became impure on the thirtieth day [before he brought his offerings], invalidates everything. Rabbi Eliezer says: He invalidates only seven.”

And the explanation of their dispute according to Rav Mattana’s view on page 5 is:

The view of the Sages: Since he is still within the days of his naziriteship, which are thirty days, he invalidates everything, like any other nazirite who became impure within the count of his days of naziriteship, who invalidates everything. And although if he had brought his offerings we would say, “A part of the day is like the whole day,” nevertheless, we do not say “a part of the day is like the whole day” with regard to invalidation, to consider him as though he became impure on the thirty-first day; rather, he invalidates everything, since he did not complete all his naziriteship in purity.

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

And we answer: This beraita—which says that if he left in his hairs enough to bend their tips to their roots, the shaving does not invalidate—deals with

a case where they shaved him after the completion

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

And whose

[is the tanna of the beraita]

is it? It is Rabbi Eliezer—

And it is according to his view,

for Rabbi Eliezer said

with regard to invalidation through impurity:

any

nazirite who became impure

after the completion,

that is, on the thirtieth day,

seven

days alone does he

invalidate

[so that he may first become pure through the sprinkling of the third and seventh days], and he does not invalidate all the earlier days.

And according to his view, 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; and again, consequently, if he was not completely shaved but enough remained in him to bend its tip to its root, he does not invalidate at all, as the Gemara proceeds to explain all this.

And we explain:

What is Rabbi Eliezer’s reason

[that is, the tanna of the beraita, concerning whom it was explained that he is Rabbi Eliezer]? How does the law of shaving on the day of completion, when enough remained to bend its tip to its root, depend upon the law of invalidating seven through impurity on the day of completion? The Gemara explains that since on the thirtieth day, which is the day fit for a mitzva shaving, he had hair of thirty days, it is found that the time fit for shaving has passed, and afterward we do not care that he was shaved.

And by law we should have said that he need not wait at all; rather, he must wait seven days, because

he derives purification shaving

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

from impurity shaving

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

Just as impurity shaving is seven, so purification shaving is seven.

Just as one who became impure on the day of completion adds seven days to the count of his naziriteship, so one who was 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 automatically that if he was shaved on this day and enough remained in his hairs to bend its tip to its root, he does not invalidate at all—

And

because

it is established for the Sages: every seven days, hair comes

[hair]

enough to bend its tip to its root

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

And since on the day of completion he invalidates only seven days, which are the time required for hair to grow enough to bend its tip to its root, therefore, if enough to bend its tip to its root remained in him from the outset, he does not invalidate at all.

We learned in the Mishna: A nazirite who shaved, whether with a razor or with scissors, or clipped any amount, is liable: a. In the beraita below [brought on this page] we learned: “A razor shall not pass over his head”—I have only a razor. If he plucked or removed—how do I derive it?

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

And the intention of the beraita is to say: Do not say that specifically a razor is included, but rather every implement that removes hair is included. Nevertheless, it must be like a razor, that is, until it cuts the hair at its root [and this is the view of our Mishna].

It is further proven from the discussion below, 41a, that Rabbi Eliezer holds: He is liable only for an actual razor, and not for all implements that remove hair.

The Sages taught:

It is written in the Torah, in the section of the nazirite: “A razor shall not pass over his head,” and since the Torah said, “

A razor

shall not pass over his head”—

I have only

that the nazirite is forbidden and liable to lashes

for

shaving in which the nazirite shaved with a

razor

and anything similar to it—that is, he shaved the hair close to its root—which is also forbidden, because it is included through “It shall not pass over his head.”

razor

But if he

plucked with his hand, or

removed

with a depilatory, or

clipped

with his hand

any amount,

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

from where

do we derive that although he is not lashed because of “A razor shall not pass over his head,” he is nevertheless forbidden?

from where

do I derive that although he is not liable to lashes because of “A razor shall not pass over his head,” he is nevertheless forbidden to do so?

The verse teaches: “

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

That is: Although he did not transgress a prohibition, nevertheless he nullified the positive commandment, “He shall be holy; he shall let the growth of the hair of his head grow,”

the words of Rabbi Yoshiyya.

Rabbi Yonatan says: “

A razor,”

I have only a razor

actual, but

removed, plucked,

or

clipped

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

exempt,

since it says, “A razor.”

And we challenge Rabbi Yonatan:

But it is written: “

He shall be holy

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.” If so, he should be forbidden even with other implements that remove hair, and even when he did not shave the hair at its root—because of the positive commandment!?

to state that if he shaves it with a razor, he violates both a positive and a negative commandment [

And we answer: Rabbi Yonatan’s view is that one is subject to the positive commandment only for what was forbidden to him by a prohibition, and the positive commandment was written only

to state that if he shaved it with a razor, he incurs a positive commandment and a negative commandment

[for one who shaves with a razor or like a razor transgresses a positive commandment in addition to the negative commandment].

Another beraita was taught: “

A razor,”

I have only

if he shaved with an actual

razor.

He plucked

with his hand,

removed

with a depilatory, or

clipped

with his hand

any amount, that is, even one hair—

from where

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

The verse teaches: 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,” it implies the inclusion of all implements that remove hair; nevertheless, only shaving like a razor is included, because the Torah said, “A razor.”

And the beraita further explains:

And since in the end we are going to include every implement

even one that is not a razor,

what is the teaching of: A razor shall not pass over his head?

Why did the Torah mention the term “razor”? If the Torah came only to say that it must be like a razor, it should have said, “A destructive implement shall not pass over his head”!?

And the beraita explains:

since we did not learn [this] regarding the shaving

last—

of the mitzva—

that it is with a razor,

therefore “razor” was stated, to teach that it is to be with a razor and not with the other instruments that remove [hair].