Nazir 41a — the Talmud in English

And the Gemara explains another explanation of how it is proven from “his head” — according to the Sages — 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 plucking instrument and a scraping instrument

also

he performs a mitzva,

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

Since it did not write

explicitly concerning the shaving of the leper that it is specifically with a

razor,

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

in accordance with Reish Lakish —

For

Reish Lakish said:

Every place where you find a positive commandment and a prohibition, if you are able to fulfill both of them, it is preferable.

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

And if so, since he is able to fulfill both the mitzva of shaving and to refrain from transgressing the prohibition of destruction, by shaving with a plucking instrument and a scraping instrument, it is not reasonable that the Torah should permit him to shave with a razor. Necessarily, the leper too can shave only with a razor.

And after the Gemara finished explaining that the preceding give-and-take [41a, from where is it derived that the leper’s shaving is with a razor?] is according to Rabbi Eliezer, the Gemara returns to discuss: From where indeed do we know, according to Rabbi Eliezer, that the leper’s shaving is with a razor? For in that give-and-take it became clear 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?

And the Gemara explains:

He derives

it, Rabbi Eliezer,

from

“his head”,

which is stated in the section of the leper.

For it was taught:

The Torah said 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?

For the shaving of his head is already included in what the Torah said at the beginning of the verse, to shave all his hair:

Since it is stated concerning a nazirite:

“A razor shall not pass over his head,”

one might have thought that even a nazirite

— during the count of his naziriteship — who is

a leper, likewise,

should not fulfill the mitzva of the leper’s shaving while he is a nazirite, in order that he not transgress this prohibition of shaving with a razor, since while he is a leper there is added to this prohibition also the positive commandment of the nazirite: “He shall be holy; he shall let the growth of the hair of his head grow.”

And a positive commandment does not override a prohibition and a positive commandment —

Therefore,

the verse states:

“his head”!

And the superfluous “his head” comes to teach that even a leper who is a nazirite, in whom there are a prohibition and a positive commandment, shaves his head with a razor.

We have thus learned that the leper’s shaving is fulfilled only with a razor. For if this were not so, the Torah would not have expanded from “his head” that the leper who is a nazirite is permitted to shave his head with a razor, since he is able to shave his hair without a razor and not transgress “a razor shall not pass over his head.”

And we challenge this, in the manner in which the Gemara challenged above concerning the derivation that a leper shaves only with a razor from “his beard”:

From what

— from where do you derive here that the leper’s shaving is only with a razor? For

perhaps, in reality, even if he plucked it with a plucking instrument and a scraping instrument

and not with a razor, also

he performs a mitzva,

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

And if you would say

that, then the superfluous “his head”

why do I need it? —

I will say to you: in order

to permit

[to permit him]

even with a razor

he may shave, although he is not obligated.

For without the derivation from “his head,”

it might enter our mind

and I would think:

Since concerning a nazirite

who is not a leper,

when he performs

when he shaves him

with a razor, he becomes liable

because of “a razor shall not pass over his head” —

then

concerning a leper too,

although he is performing a mitzva by shaving —

he should become liable

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

Therefore

it teaches us “his head,”

“his head,”

that he is not

liable, since he is performing a mitzva. And this is so even though, from the standpoint of the mitzva of the leper’s shaving, he is not obligated to shave specifically with a razor.

And this is — in the manner of the Gemara’s challenge above against the Sages — that even if he is not obligated to shave with a razor, nevertheless, since he fulfills through this the positive commandment of the leper’s shaving, he is permitted to transgress the prohibition, even though he is not compelled to override it.

And we resolve:

If it enters your mind

that the leper

when he performs [the shaving] with a plucking instrument and a scraping instrument

also

performs a mitzva

[if it is as you say, that the leper may shave even with a plucking instrument and a scraping instrument], then the Torah would not have permitted him to shave with a razor, for:

Since the Merciful One did not write

the Torah

“razor,”

we should say that it does not override [the prohibition],

in accordance with Reish Lakish,

that wherever it is possible to fulfill both, a positive commandment does not override a prohibition.

And

we challenge

the Sages,

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

this “his head”

written concerning the leper —

what do they expound from it

[what will they expound from it]?

For this is understandable according to Rabbi Eliezer: “his head” was needed to teach that the leper’s shaving is only with a razor. But the Sages already learned this from “his beard”; why do they need “his head”!

And we resolve: “his head” —

is needed

[is required]

for them, the Sages, in order

to

override

the positive commandment of the leper’s shaving

the prohibition of rounding

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

And

as it was taught:

It is stated in the Torah:

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

One might have thought that even

every

leper is likewise,

so that he should not round off the corner of his head?

Therefore

the verse states:

“his head.”

And we challenge the Sages:

Why do I need it to write

“his head”

to teach that the leper rounds off his head?

And let him derive it from

“his beard,”

for from there we learned that a priest who is a leper destroys his beard:

For it was taught:

The obligation to shave his

beard,

which is stated concerning the shaving of the leper, after the verse had already said that he must shave all his hair —

what does it teach us?

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

Since it is stated

concerning priests:

“And they shall not shave the corner of their beard.” —

One might have thought that even

a

priest who is a leper is likewise?

The verse states

“his beard” —

And let there be a difficulty:

Why do I need it to write

also

“his head,”

that the leper rounds off his head,

and why do I need it to write

also

“his beard,”

that a priest who is a leper destroys his beard? For it is possible to learn one law from the other!?

And we resolve:

Both are needed,

these two verses:

For had the Merciful One written

“his beard”

alone,

and had not written

“his head,”

I would have thought

[I would say]:

“Rounding

[shaving]

the entire head is not called rounding,”

but the prohibition applies only when he shaves only the corners of his head, leaving hair at 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 off his head, but in order that we learn from it that “rounding the entire head is called rounding”; for otherwise the Torah would not have needed to innovate that he is permitted to round off his head, since there is no prohibition in this at all.