Nazir 40a (מ.) — the Talmud in English

And

so

to teach it—

that the mitzva shaving must be with a razor—

from the leper,

who undergoes two shavings with a razor,

is impossible!

Since

we do not derive a lenient [

Nazirite shaving, which is lenient, since it is performed only on the head]

from a stringent [

leper’s shaving, which is stringent, since he shaves his entire body],

to impose stringency upon him [

upon the Nazirite shaving, that the shaving must be performed only with a razor].

Rabbi says: He does not need it, meaning: It is not necessary to say that the Torah wrote “razor” in order to teach that the final shaving of a Nazirite must be with a razor. Rather, we can say that “razor” was written in order to teach that the prohibition of shaving applies specifically when it is performed with a razor, [as the Gemara will explain below].

that is, it is not necessary to say that the Torah wrote the word “razor” in order to teach that the Nazirite’s final shaving must be performed with a razor. Rather, we may say that “razor” was written to teach that the prohibition against shaving applies specifically to shaving with a razor; [the Gemara explains this below].

And why do I say that this is not necessary?

Because this law—that the shaving is performed only with a razor—we can derive from another source, for

it says: “

No razor shall pass over his head until the completion,”

and therefore the Torah juxtaposed “until the completion” to “razor,” because

the Torah said

by this:

after the completion—

that is, when he performs the mitzva shaving—

the shaving shall be performed only with a razor.

And we challenge Rabbi:

But it is written “

No razor shall pass over his head,”

which includes every implement that removes hair, as the first tanna said; if so, how could Rabbi say that “razor” comes to teach the prohibition of shaving? After all, he is liable even for using any implement that removes hair!?

And we answer: In any event, “razor” was written with regard to the prohibition of shaving, in order

to have him violate it—

the Nazirite who shaved with an actual razor—

by two prohibitions—

For what the Torah said, “A razor shall ‘not’ pass over his head,” is expounded both with regard to what precedes and what follows it, as though the Torah had said: “A razor—no; it shall not pass over his head.” The first prohibition applies only to a razor, while the second applies to every implement that removes hair, including a razor.

Rav Hisda said,

it is a halakha given to Moses at Sinai:

To receive lashes

for the shaving: the Nazirite receives lashes even for removing

a

single

hair

alone.

To invalidate

the mitzva shaving at the completion of his Nazirite term,

two

hairs are required: if he left two hairs, his shaving is not valid.

To undo

his Nazirite days because of the shaving,

he undoes them only by

shaving

most of his head.

And with a razor,

meaning: the statement we made initially, that he receives lashes, applies only when he shaved with a razor; the Gemara proceeds to explain this.

And we challenge this: Is it only

with a razor, and not

that he indeed receives lashes, but

with something else—

with the other implements that remove hair—

he does not

receive lashes!?

But

we learned

in our Mishna:

A Nazirite who shaved, whether with scissors, whether with a razor, or who clipped away any amount, is liable!?

And we answer:

Say [

that this is what Rav Hisda meant]: “and

in the manner of a razor,”

that is, that he shaved the hair down to its roots.

It was taught likewise

in accordance with the words of Rav Hisda: he receives lashes even for a single hair, but he undoes his Nazirite count only by shaving most of his head:

A Nazirite who plucked, pulled out, or clipped away any amount—

that is, even a single hair—has

incurred liability.

And

he undoes his count only by shaving most of his head.

And

the statement that we made, that he receives lashes, applies only

with a razor,

that is, with an implement that shaves in the manner of a razor.

Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda said in the name of Rabbi Shimon:

Just as two hairs invalidate it

with regard to fulfilling the mitzva of shaving,

so

even

two hairs

alone that are shaved

undo his count,

even though most of the head was not shaved.

We learned there

in tractate Nega’im:

Three shave, and their shaving is a mitzva:

a.

A Nazirite

who shaves his head in the shaving of purification.

b.

And a leper

who shaves his entire body at the end of his days of confirmed status, when he becomes pure from his leprosy, and at the end of his days of counting, as it is stated [Leviticus 14:8]: “And the one being purified shall wash his garments, shave all his hair, bathe in water, and become pure; afterward he may enter the camp, but he shall remain outside his tent for seven days. And on the seventh day he shall shave [again] all his hair—his head, his beard, his eyebrows, and all his hair he shall shave. And on the eighth day he shall take two unblemished male lambs [for a guilt-offering and a burnt-offering], and one unblemished year-old female lamb [for a sin-offering], and one log of oil. And the priest shall take one lamb and offer it as a guilt-offering, together with the log of oil, and wave them as a wave-offering before the Lord. And if he is poor and cannot afford them, he shall take one lamb as a guilt-offering for waving, and two turtledoves or two young pigeons, according to what he can afford; one shall be a sin-offering and the other a burnt-offering.”

c.

And the Levites

in the wilderness, as it was said to Moses: “Take the Levites from among the children of Israel and purify them. And thus shall you do to them to purify them: sprinkle the water of purification upon them, and pass a razor over all their flesh; then they shall wash their garments and purify themselves. And they shall take a bull, the offspring of cattle, together with its meal-offering of fine flour mixed with oil; and you shall take a second bull, the offspring of cattle, as a sin-offering. And Aaron shall wave the Levites as a wave-offering before the Lord, from among the children of Israel, and they shall be for the service of the Lord’s service.”

And all of them who shaved without a razor, or who left two hairs

unshaved,

have accomplished nothing.

The Master said: Three shave, and their shaving is a mitzva:

And we challenge this:

Is it not obvious

since all of these are explicit verses!? And we answer:

Lest you say:

the shaving is not a mitzva in its own right, but

is merely for the removal of the hair [

it is only intended to remove the hair],

and

if so, a razor is not indispensable for them; rather,

even the application of depilatory [

the application of a substance that removes the hair] would suffice, since in the end the hair has been removed.

It teaches us

the Mishna

that this is not so:

rather, their shaving is a mitzva in its own right, and one shaves only with a razor.

It teaches

in the Mishna [the Master said]:

And all of them who shaved without a razor, and so on, have accomplished nothing. And we challenge this:

and so on, have accomplished nothing. And we challenge this:

Granted, with regard to a Nazirite,

he performs the mitzva shaving only with a razor, because

it is written: “

No razor shall pass over his head,”

as explained above [at the beginning of the page], that this verse teaches that the mitzva shaving is performed only with a razor.

And

it is likewise

granted with regard to the Levites:

they shave only with a razor, because

it is written: “And they shall pass a razor over all their flesh.”

But a leper,

who shaves

with a razor,

from where do we know this? For the Torah states only, “And he shall shave all his hair,” and, “On the seventh day he shall shave all his hair”; but it does not mention a razor!?

for in the Torah it says only, “And he shall shave all his hair,” and, “On the seventh day he shall shave all his hair,” but with a razor — no!?

The Gemara expands upon its question:

And if you would say that it can be derived from the Levites,

you might say: Let us derive the shaving of the leper, which is performed with a razor, from the shaving of the Levites, and reason as follows:

The Levites, since [

they]

are required to undergo shaving, and their shaving is only with a razor, so too I will include the leper, who is required to undergo shaving, and whose shaving is only with a razor.

But

there is grounds to refute this: What is distinctive about the Levites? They are required to undergo waving of their bodies,

as it is stated: “And Aaron shall wave the Levites as a wave-offering before the Lord.”

Can you say the same with regard to the leper, where this is not so?

He is not required to have his body waved; rather, his offering is waved, as it is stated: “And the priest shall take one lamb and offer it as a guilt-offering, together with the log of oil, and wave them as a wave-offering before the Lord.”

Rather, let it be derived from a Nazirite.

You might say that we should derive the leper, who shaves with a razor, from a Nazirite; but this too can be refuted:

What is distinctive about a Nazirite? His offering requires loaves; can you say the same with regard to the leper, where this is not so?

He does not bring loaves with his offering.

If so, from where do we know that the leper’s shaving is with a razor!?

And we answer:

Rather,

indeed, the leper’s shaving

cannot be derived from one [

it cannot be derived through an av binyan from a single verse, whether from the Levites alone or from a Nazirite alone]—

but

it can be derived from both of them [

we derive the law that the leper is required to shave with a razor through an av binyan from both verses together].

How can it be derived,

that is, how do we derive it from them?

The Gemara explains how it is derived from both of them:

If you say:

Let it be derived

for the leper

from the Levites

alone,

there is grounds to refute this:

What is distinctive about the Levites? They are required to have their bodies waved;

can you say the same with regard to the leper, who is not required to have his body waved?

And if you say:

The Nazirite proves it,

for he is not required to have his body waved, and nevertheless his shaving is with a razor.

There is grounds to refute this:

What is distinctive about a Nazirite? His offering requires loaves.

Rather, you must return and say as at first:

The Levites prove it,

for their offering does not require loaves, and nevertheless their shaving is only with a razor.

And

it follows that

the matter has come full circle.

This one cannot be viewed through the aspect of that one, and that one cannot be viewed through the aspect of this one [

the distinctive stringency and the possible refutation of one are not the same as those of the other].

Therefore, it must be derived from

the common aspect between them—

that they are required to undergo shaving, and their shaving is with a razor—

so too I will include the leper, who is required to undergo shaving, and whose shaving is with a razor!

He said

the objection

to him, Rava of Barnish, to Rav Ashi: