Nazir 40b (מ:) — the Talmud in English

And

there is

still a difficulty: What is the common denominator between them—

the Levites and the nazirite—

that

their offering is not subject to a poor person’s scale,

meaning: the poor person brings no offering different from that of the wealthy person, and they all bring the same offering,

can you say the same regarding the leper, whose offering is subject to a poor person’s scale,

as 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 that the law of the leper could be derived from that of the nazirite:

And

there is

this tanna—

of the beraita cited above, on page 39b—

who initially said:

To derive it—

the nazirite’s mitzva shaving, which is performed with a razor—

from the leper is impossible,

since

one may not derive a lenient law from a stringent one in order to impose a stringency upon it—

And we learn from his words that the shaving of the leper does not require a derivation from the nazirite; for, on the contrary, we are attempting to derive the law of the nazirite from that of the leper—

And afterward he said,

meaning: whereas here the amoraim are analyzing the source of the law that a leper requires shaving, and they say:

Let us derive—

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

by a din [i.e., by the principle of “the common denominator”] from the nazirite and the Levites.

the common feature shared by the nazirite and the Levites.

And

they again raise a difficulty against this:

It cannot even be derived by a din,

as Rava of Barnish challenged Rav Ashi: What is the common denominator between them? Their offering is not subject to a poor person’s scale.

A difficulty should be raised against this entire analysis: Since it is clear from the beraita above that the leper cannot be derived from the nazirite, we should have sought another source for the leper’s shaving with a razor, rather than deriving it from the nazirite!?

He said—

he replied

to him,

Rava to Rava bar Mesharsheya:

That statement—

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

is according to the Rabbis;

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

But this—

the Gemara’s analysis here—

is according to Rabbi Eliezer;

according to his view, we do not know from another source that the leper’s shaving is performed with a razor. We therefore need to determine the source, according to his view, for the requirement that a leper shave with a razor; the Gemara proceeds to explain it.

a. The Torah warned all Jews [Leviticus 19:27]: “You shall not destroy the corners of your beard.”

b. The Torah additionally warned the priests specifically [Leviticus 21:5]: “They shall not shave the corners of their beard.”

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

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

e. The Sages and Rabbi Eliezer disagree [in the Mishna cited in this sugya] whether the Torah prohibited destroying the beard specifically with a razor, or also with other implements of destruction. However, all agree that there is no prohibition unless one destroys the beard at its roots; and this law makes no distinction between priests and Israelites.

f. The Torah prohibited all Jews from removing the side-growth of the head, as it is stated [Leviticus 19:27]: “You shall not remove the side-growth of your head.”

And what is removing the side-growth? It is making one’s temples even with the area behind one’s ears and with one’s forehead. The “temples” are the hair that grows abundantly next to the ears, whereas behind the ears the area is smooth and there is no hair; likewise, there is no hair on the forehead. When one removes the hair of the temples, which is the side-growth of the head, and leaves it smooth and without hair, it becomes even with the area behind the ears and with the forehead [Tosafot below, 41a].

The sugya will explain the law of one who shaved his entire head [“removing the side-growth of the entire head”], whether he violates “You shall not remove the side-growth.”

g. The sugya explains that removing the side-growth is prohibited even without a razor; however, one is liable only when it is done in a manner resembling a razor, as Tosafot will explain below.

h. We hold that “a positive commandment overrides a prohibition” [the source of this principle is explained later in the sugya], but a positive commandment does not override both a prohibition and a positive commandment.

As we learned—

the Sages and Rabbi Eliezer disagreed:

And he is not liable—

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

until he removes it with a razor

specifically, and not with other implements, even though they too “destroy” the beard at its roots.

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

Rabbi Eliezer says: Even if he removed it—

the corner of the beard—

with a tweezers and a plane —

which destroy the beard at its roots—

he is liable.

According to his view, that the prohibition against destroying the beard applies even without a razor, he cannot derive the source from which the Sages learned that the leper’s shaving is performed with a razor, as the Gemara will explain.

And

what is the reasoning of the Rabbis?

That is: From where did the tanna of the beraita learn that, according to the Rabbis—who maintain that the prohibition against destroying the beard applies only with a razor—the leper’s shaving is performed only with a razor?

The Gemara’s words are explained according to one interpretation by which the Gemara explains its proof; later the Gemara presents another interpretation of the proof.

As it was taught:

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

His beard”—

why do I need the verse to state this!?

Is it not included in “his hair”? Why, then, did the verse specify and say, “his beard”?

Since it is stated

concerning priests: “

They shall not shave the corners of their beard,”

one might have thought that even a leper—

a priest—

is so,

that he may not shave his beard because he is subject to both a prohibition and a positive commandment against destroying his beard. Therefore

the verse states

in the passage concerning the leper: “

his beard,” in order to include a leper who is a priest, permitting him to shave his beard.

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

From here there is a source—according to the view of the Rabbis, that the prohibition against destroying the beard applies only with a razor—that the leper’s shaving is performed with a razor.

For the Torah’s inclusion must necessarily refer to a razor, which alone is prohibited. If it were not obligatory to shave specifically with a razor, why would he shave with a razor? He could fulfill both requirements by shaving without a razor, thereby fulfilling the mitzva of shaving while avoiding the prohibition and the positive commandment concerning destroying the beard.

However, according to Rabbi Eliezer, who maintains that destroying the beard is prohibited even without a razor, the Torah had to permit a leper who is a priest to shave his beard even when the shaving is not performed with a razor, since that too is prohibited. According to his view, we have no source that the leper’s shaving is performed with a razor.

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

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

And from where do we know—

according to the Rabbis—

that

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

with a razor?

As it was taught:

It is written in the Torah concerning priests: “

They shall not shave the corners of their beard.”

One might have thought that even if he shaved with scissors—

without destroying the beard at its roots—

he should be liable?

The verse therefore states

concerning Israelites: “

You shall not destroy

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

One might have thought that if he removed it

from his beard

with a tweezers and a plane,

which destroy the beard,

he should be liable;

therefore

the verse states

concerning priests: “

They shall not shave the corners of their beard,”

which implies that the act must be performed in the manner of shaving.

How is this to be understood?

What shaving involves destruction—

that is, what destruction is performed in the manner of shaving?

You must say that this is a razor.

And by means of the gzera shava “corner”–“corner,” we learn that what is stated concerning priests also applies to Israelites, and what is stated concerning Israelites also applies to priests.

The Gemara now returns to what was explained above: From the superfluous mention of “his beard,” which comes to include the destruction of the beard with a razor in the case of a leper who is a priest, one can learn that the mitzva of the leper’s shaving is fulfilled only with a razor. The Gemara challenges this:

From where—

do you know to prove this!?

Perhaps, in fact, even if he removed it—

the leper’s beard—

with a tweezers and a plane [

which uproot the hair at its roots]

he has nevertheless performed a mitzva,

as there is no requirement to shave specifically with a razor—

And what the verse comes to teach us

through the superfluous mention of “his beard” in the passage concerning the leper is

that even

if he destroyed his beard

with a razor

and violated the prohibition against destroying the beard,

he is not liable for it,

meaning: Although he is not required 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 the prohibition, even though he could avoid overriding the prohibition!?

And we answer:

If it enters your mind,

if your statement is correct, that

when he performs it

the leper

may also properly use a tweezers and a plane

for the mitzva of shaving, and that the verse did not obligate him to perform a forbidden shaving but merely permitted him, should he wish to shave with a razor—then

let the verse remain silent concerning it [

let the verse remain silent concerning “his beard”],

and I would say on my own [

I would say that he is permitted to do so] by a kal va-chomer from the nazirite in the course of his mitzva shaving, when he shaves his head and removes its side-growth. I would derive it as follows:

And just as concerning a nazirite, who

even though

he commits a transgression

by accepting naziriteship, since the nazirite is a sinner, and his mitzva of shaving is performed through a prohibited act,

even so, he is obligated

to shave his head and remove its side-growth, even though he violates “You shall not remove the side-growth of your head”—

Here,

in the case of the leper’s shaving,

which is a mitzva,

meaning: it is a mitzva that did not arise through a transgression,

it does not follow

all the more so

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