Nazir 41a (מא.) — the Talmud in English

And the Gemara offers an additional explanation of how it can be proven from the phrase “his beard,” according to the Rabbis, that the leper shaves only with a razor:

Furthermore, if it enters your mind

[if it is as you say], that even

when he performs

the leper

with a malaket and a raḥitni

also

performs a mitzva,

then it is impossible to say that the Torah teaches that, if he wishes, he may shave his beard with a razor. For:

Since it is not written

explicitly, with regard to the leper’s shaving, that it is specifically with a

razor,

we should say that it is forbidden for him to shave his beard with a razor,

in accordance with the opinion of Reish Lakish—

As

Reish Lakish said:

Wherever you find a positive mitzva and a prohibition, if you are able to fulfill both of them, it is preferable.

And if not, the positive mitzva comes and overrides the prohibition.

And if so, since he can fulfill both the mitzva of shaving and avoid transgressing the prohibition against destroying the beard by shaving with a malaket and a raḥitni, it is not reasonable that the Torah would permit him to shave with a razor. Rather, it must be that even the leper can shave only with a razor.

After the Gemara has concluded explaining that the foregoing give-and-take [41a, “From where is it derived that the leper’s shaving is with a razor?”] follows the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, the Gemara returns to discuss the matter: From where indeed do we know, according to Rabbi Eliezer, that the leper’s shaving is with a razor? For that give-and-take established that we have no source for this law.

And Rabbi Eliezer—

what is the reason?

From where does he derive that the leper shaves only with a razor?

The Gemara explains:

He derives

this law, Rabbi Eliezer,

from

“his head,”

which is stated in the section concerning the leper.

As it was taught:

The Torah states in the section concerning the purification of the leper:

“And it shall be on the seventh day: He shall shave all his hair—

his head, his beard, and his eyebrows,

and all his hair he shall shave.”

“His head,”

which the Torah stated—

what does it teach us?

Shaving his head is already included in what the Torah stated at the beginning of the verse, that he must shave all his hair.

Since it is stated with regard to a nazir:

“A razor shall not pass over his head,”

one might have thought that even a nazir

during the period of his naziriteship, who is

also a leper,

would likewise not fulfill the mitzva of the leper’s shaving while he is a nazir, so as not to transgress this prohibition against shaving with a razor, since, when he is a leper, the positive mitzva of the nazir is added to this prohibition: “He shall be holy; he shall let the growth of the hair of his head grow.”

And a positive mitzva does not override both a prohibition and a positive mitzva.

Therefore,

the Torah states:

“His head”!

The redundant word “his head” comes to teach that even a leper who is a nazir, who is subject both to a prohibition and to a positive mitzva, shaves his head with a razor.

We have thus learned that the leper’s shaving is fulfilled only with a razor. For otherwise, the Torah would not have derived from “his head” that a leper who is a nazir is permitted to shave his head with a razor, since he could shave his hair without a razor and would not transgress “A razor shall not pass over his head.”

And we raise the same objection that the Gemara raised above concerning the derivation from “his beard” that a leper shaves only with a razor:

From where

do you derive here that the leper’s shaving is only with a razor? After all,

perhaps, in fact, even if he removes it with a malaket and a raḥitni

and not with a razor, he

also performs a mitzva,

for the Torah did not require the leper to shave specifically with a razor—

And if you would say

that, in that case, the redundancy of “his head”

why do I need it?—

I would answer you: It is needed

to permit

[to permit him]

even with a razor,

although he is not obligated to do so.

For without the derivation from “his head,”

I might have thought

and said:

Since, with regard to a nazir

who is not a leper,

when he performs

his shaving

with a razor, he becomes liable

for “A razor shall not pass over his head”—

if so,

with regard to a leper as well,

even though he is performing a mitzva by shaving,

he should be liable

for shaving with a razor, because he was not commanded to shave specifically with a razor.

Therefore,

it teaches us

“his head,”

that he is not

liable, since he is performing a mitzva. This is so even though, from the perspective of the mitzva of the leper’s shaving, he is not specifically required to shave with a razor.

And this is analogous to the objection that the Gemara raised above against the Rabbis: Even if he is not required to shave with a razor, nevertheless, since he thereby fulfills the positive mitzva of the leper’s shaving, he is permitted to transgress the prohibition, even though he is not forced to override it.

And we answer:

If it enters your mind

that the leper

when he performs the shaving with a malaket and a raḥitni

also

performs a mitzva

[if it is as you say, that the leper may shave even with a malaket and a raḥitni], then the Torah would not have permitted him to shave with a razor. For:

Since the Merciful One did not write

“

razor,”

we should say that he should not override the prohibition,

in accordance with Reish Lakish,

who says that wherever both can be fulfilled, a positive mitzva does not override a prohibition.

And

we raise an objection to

the Rabbis,

who derive that the leper shaves with a razor from “his beard”: In that case,

this “his head”

written concerning the leper—

what do they expound from it

[what will they expound from it]?

For this works well according to Rabbi Eliezer: “his head” was needed to teach that the leper’s shaving is only with a razor. But the Rabbis already derived this from “his beard”; why do they need “his head”?

And we answer: “his head”—

is needed

[is required]

for them, the Rabbis, in order

to

override

the positive mitzva of the leper’s shaving

the prohibition against rounding

the hair of the head that applies to every person. For when he shaves his entire head together with the corners of his head, he transgresses “You shall not round the corners of your head.”

And

as it was taught:

It is stated in the Torah:

“You shall not round the corners of your head.”

One might have thought that even

every

leper is likewise subject to this,

and may not round the corner of his head.

Therefore,

the Torah states:

“His head.”

And we raise an objection to the Rabbis:

Why do I need it to write

“his head”

to teach that the leper rounds his head?

Let him derive it from

“his beard,”

from which we learned that a leper who is a kohein destroys his beard:

As it was taught:

The requirement to shave

“his beard,”

which is stated with regard to the leper’s shaving, after the verse has already said that he must shave all his hair—

what does it teach us?

Why was it necessary for the verse to say that he shaves his beard, when it is included in “all his hair”?

Since it is stated

concerning the priests:

“They shall not shave the corners of their beard” —

One might have thought that even

a

leper who is a kohein is likewise subject to this?

The Torah states

“his beard”—

And the question arises:

Why do I need it to write

also

“his head,”

that the leper rounds his head, and

why do I need it to write

also

“his beard,”

that a leper who is a kohein destroys his beard? Surely one law can be learned from the other!?

And we answer:

Both are necessary,

these two verses:

For had the Merciful One written

“his beard”

alone,

and had not written

“his head,”

I might have thought

[I would have said]:

“Rounding

[shaving]

the entire head is not called rounding,”

but the prohibition applies only when one shaves the corners of his head alone, leaving hair on the crown of his head like a round cap.

For this reason the Merciful One wrote

“his head.”

That is to say: “his head” was not needed to teach that the leper is permitted to round his head; rather, it teaches us from this that rounding the entire head is considered rounding. For otherwise, the Torah would not have needed to introduce the novelty that he is permitted to round his head, since there would be no prohibition at all in doing so.