Nazir 40b — the Talmud in English

And

behold, there is

to refute: What is there in the common feature of them —

Levites and a nazirite —

that ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location")

their offering is not according to poverty,

that is to say: the poor person brings no offering different from that of the wealthy person, but they all have one offering,

can you say the same concerning a leper, whose offering is according to poverty,

for the poor person brings an offering different from that of the wealthy person?

The following question of the Gemara is explained according to the Keren Ora.

He said

he challenged

Rava bar Mesharsheya to Rava

concerning the Gemara’s initial assumption to derive the law of the leper from the nazirite:

And

behold,

this tanna —

of the beraita brought above, on page 39b —

initially said:

To derive it —

the mitzva shaving of a nazirite, which is with a razor —

from a leper is impossible,

since

one does not derive a lenient matter from a stringent one in order to make it stringent —

And we learned from his words that the shaving of the leper does not require a derivation from a nazirite, for, on the contrary, we come to derive the nazirite from the leper —

And afterward he said,

that is to say: whereas here the amoraim discuss the source of the law that a leper requires shaving, and they say:

Let us derive —

the shaving of a leper, which is with a razor —

from the law

of the “common feature”] of a nazirite and Levites.

And

they again raise a difficulty against this:

he does not derive it even from the law,

as Rava of Barnish challenged Rav Ashi: What is there in the common feature of them, that their offering is not according to poverty?

And let this entire discussion be challenged: Behold, since in the beraita above it is compelled that the leper is not derived from the nazirite, we should have sought another source for the shaving of the leper, which is with a razor, and not derived it from a nazirite!?

He said

he answered

to him

Rava to Rava bar Mesharsheya:

That —

what they said in the beraita, “To derive it from a leper is impossible,” implying that the leper is not derived from a nazirite but is derived from another source —

is according to the Rabbis,

for according to their view there is another source, as will be explained.

But this —

the discussion of the Gemara here — is according to

Rabbi Eliezer

for according to his view we did not know from another source that the shaving of the leper is with a razor, and we must know from where, according to his view, the source is that the leper requires shaving with a razor; and the Gemara explains it and proceeds.

A. The Torah warned all Israel [Leviticus 19:27]: “You shall not destroy the corner of your beard.”

B. The Torah further warned the priests specifically [Leviticus 21:5]: “They shall not shave the corner of their beard.”

C. The Torah commanded the priests in the portion of Emor [there, verse 6]: “They shall be holy to their God,” and included in this positive commandment is that they should not destroy their beard.

D. A woman is not prohibited from destroying the beard, because a woman’s beard is not considered a beard, even when she has one.

E. The Sages and Rabbi Eliezer disagree [in the Mishna brought in this discussion] whether the Torah prohibited destroying the beard specifically with a razor, or also with other instruments of destruction. However, according to everyone, there is a prohibition only when he destroys the beard from its root; and in this law there is no distinction between priests and Israelites.

F. The Torah prohibited all Israel from removing the corner of the head, as it is stated [Leviticus 19:27]: “You shall not remove the corner of your head.”

And what is removal? This is when one makes his temples equal with the backs of his ears and with his forehead. “His temples” means the hair that is abundant and grows next to the ears, whereas behind his ears it is smooth and there is no hair there, and likewise on his forehead [his brow] there is no hair. When he removes the hairs of his temples, which are the corner of the head, and it becomes smooth without hair, it is found to be equal with the backs of his ears and his forehead [Tosafot below, 41a].

In our discussion, the law of one who shaved his entire head [“removal of the entire head”] will be explained, whether he transgresses “You shall not remove.”

G. In our discussion it is explained that removal is prohibited even without a razor; however, one is liable only when it is like a razor, as explained in Tosafot below.

H. It is established for us: “A positive commandment overrides a negative commandment” [and the source for this law is explained later in the discussion], but a positive commandment does not override a negative commandment and a positive commandment.

For we learned

that the Sages and Rabbi Eliezer disagreed:

And he is not liable —

whether priest or Israelite — for destroying the corner of the beard

until he removes it with a razor

literally, and not with other removers, even though they too “destroy” the beard from its root.

And according to the view of this tanna, we can learn that the leper shaves with a razor even without deriving it from a nazirite, as will be explained further in the Gemara.

Rabbi Eliezer says: Even if he removed it

the corner of the beard

with tweezers and a scraping instrument —

which destroy the beard from its root —

he is liable.

And according to his view, that the prohibition of destroying the beard applies even without a razor, he cannot derive from the same source from which the Sages derived that the leper’s shaving is with a razor, as will be explained further in the Gemara.

And

what is the reason of the Rabbis,

that is to say: From where did the tanna of the beraita learn that according to the Rabbis — who hold that the prohibition of destroying the beard applies only with a razor — the shaving of a leper is only with a razor?

The explanation of the words of the Gemara follows one explanation with which the Gemara explains the proof; later in the Gemara another explanation of the Gemara’s proof is explained.

For it was taught:

It is written in the portion concerning a leper [Leviticus 14:9]: “And it shall be on the seventh day [of his remaining outside the tent, after he shaved for the first time when he became purified from his leprosy] that he shall shave all his hair, his head and his beard and his eyebrows, and all his hair he shall shave.” “

His beard” —

what does it come to teach!?

Is it not included in his hair, and why did the verse specify and say: “His beard”!?

Since it is stated

concerning priests, “

They shall not shave the corner of their beard,”

I might say, even a leper

priest

likewise,

that he should not shave his beard because he is prohibited by a negative commandment and a positive commandment from destroying his beard, therefore

the verse says

in the portion concerning a leper, “

his beard,”

in order to include the leprous priest, that he should shave his beard.

And from here, according to the view of the Rabbis, that the prohibition of destroying the beard applies only with a razor, is the source that the shaving of a leper is with a razor.

For necessarily the Torah’s inclusion concerns a razor, which alone is prohibited; and if there were no obligation to shave specifically with a razor, why would he shave with a razor? He can fulfill both of them by shaving without a razor, and the mitzva of shaving would be fulfilled together with the negative and positive commandments concerning destroying the beard.

However, according to Rabbi Eliezer, who holds that destroying the beard is prohibited even without a razor, the Torah had to permit a leprous priest to shave his beard even if the shaving is not with a razor, since that too is prohibited; and according to his view we have no source that the shaving of a leper is with a razor.

And this is what we said: “This is according to the Rabbis; that is according to Rabbi Eliezer”!

And the Gemara explains the source of the Rabbis, who hold that destroying the beard applies only with a razor:

And from where —

according to the Rabbis —

that

destroying the beard is prohibited, both for priests and for Israelites, only

with a razor?

For it was taught:

It is written in the Torah concerning priests: “

They shall not shave the corner of their beard.”

I might say, even if he shaved with scissors —

and did not destroy the beard from its root —

shall he be liable?

The verse says

concerning Israelites: “

You shall not destroy

the corner of your beard,” and there is no destruction whenever he has not shaved the beard from its root.

I might say, if he removed it

from his beard

with tweezers and a scraping instrument,

which destroy the beard,

shall he be liable?

Therefore

the verse says

concerning priests: “

They shall not shave the corner of their beard,”

which implies in the manner of shaving.

How is this —

What is shaving that contains destruction,

that is to say: what is destruction that is the manner of shaving?

You must say: This is a razor.

And by the gezera shava “corner, corner,” we learn to apply what is stated concerning priests also concerning Israelites, and what is stated concerning Israelites also concerning priests.

Here the Gemara returns to what was explained above: from the extra word “his beard,” which comes to include destruction of the beard with a razor in a leprous priest, one can learn that the mitzva of shaving in a leper is fulfilled only with a razor; and the Gemara challenges this:

From where

do you know to prove this!?

Perhaps, in truth, even if he removed it

the leper from his beard

with tweezers and a scraping instrument

[which pull out the hair from its root]

he too performs a mitzva,

for there is no mitzva to shave specifically with a razor —

And this is what it comes to inform us

the extra word “his beard” stated in the portion concerning a leper:

even

if he destroyed his beard

with a razor

and transgressed the prohibition of destroying the beard,

he is not liable for it,

that is to say: although he is not obligated to shave with a razor, nevertheless, if he wishes to fulfill the mitzva by means of a razor, he is permitted to do so, because the positive commandment overrides it, even though he can avoid overriding the prohibition!?

And we answer:

If it enters your mind,

if you say as you claim, that

when he performs

the leper

also with tweezers and a scraping instrument it is satisfactory,

for the mitzva of shaving, and the verse did not come to obligate him in a shaving involving a prohibition, but only to permit him if he wishes to shave with a razor — then

let the verse be silent concerning it

[let the verse be silent concerning “his beard”],

and I would say

[I would conclude on my own] that he has permission to do so by a kal va-chomer from a nazirite in his mitzva shaving, who shaves his head and removes it; and this is how I would derive it:

And if concerning a nazirite, that

even though

he performs a prohibited act

through accepting nazirite status, for the nazirite is a sinner, and his mitzva shaving comes through a prohibition,

even so he is liable

to shave his head and remove it, even though he transgresses “You shall not remove the corner of your head” —

Here,

concerning the shaving of a leper,

which is a mitzva,

that is to say: it is a mitzva that did not come through a transgression,

it is not at all

all the more so

that it should be permitted to shave with a razor, even though he transgresses “You shall not destroy the corner of your beard.”