Nazir 42a (מב.) — the Talmud in English

This comes to teach you: although you are prohibited from wearing shaatnez,

“there shall be twisted threads”;

so

“make them for yourself”,

even when this entails the prohibition of shaatnez. Since the positive mitzva of tzitzit overrides the prohibition against wearing shaatnez: “You shall not wear shaatnez.”

The Master said:

In the Mishna in Tractate Nega'im cited above, on page 40a:

And all of them—

a nazirite, a leper, and the Levites—

who shaved without a razor, or left two hairs

unshaved,

have accomplished nothing.

Rav Aḥa, son of Rav Ika, said:

This indicates:

From here we learn the following principle:

The performance of

most

of a thing is considered

as

the performance of

all of it, by Torah law

that is, it is a דין תורה].

That is, an action performed on most of a thing is considered as though it had been performed on all of it. For example, slaughtering most of the identifying organs of an animal permits the animal to be eaten, even though he did not slaughter all of them!

And we explain:

From where

from where is this law inferred] from here?

Because the Torah says: “And if a person dies suddenly beside him, and he defiles the consecrated head of his naziriteship; and he shall shave his head on the day of his purification—

on the seventh day he shall shave it.”

The Torah repeated the phrase “on the seventh day he shall shave it,” after it had already said, “and he shall shave his head on the day of his purification.”

This implies that the verse needed to repeat itself to teach that shaving most of the head is insufficient, but that he must shave all of it—

since the Merciful One revealed

that the Torah needed to reveal

concerning

the shaving

of a nazirite,

and state this in an additional verse,

“on the seventh day he shall shave it,”

that he is required to shave all of it and not merely most of it.

We have therefore learned from here that only

here,

concerning the mitzva shaving of a nazirite,

is it that

most of the head is not considered as all of it, and is not considered shaving the head

until there is

shaving

of all of it.

But elsewhere,

where the Torah did not explicitly reveal that most is insufficient, we may say that

most

of a thing is considered

as all of it.

Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, raised an objection to what we said—that the source for the fact that one does not fulfill his mitzva obligation by shaving only most of the head is the verse “on the seventh day he shall shave it”:

But

this

verse—

is written with regard to an impure nazirite!

If so, from where do we know that even a pure nazirite must shave all of his head?

After all, the implication of the Mishna in Nega'im is that even a pure nazirite who left two hairs has accomplished nothing!?

They laughed at this in the West

they laughed in Eretz Yisrael at Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina’s objection], because:

Since,

the fact that

an impure nazirite

does not shave except

with a razor—

from where do we know it?

Surely it is

derived from a pure nazirite,

with regard to whom it is stated: “A razor shall not pass over his head,” teaching that his mitzva shaving is performed with a razor—

he derives

it from him.

For with regard to the shaving of an impure nazirite, there is no verse teaching that his shaving must specifically be with a razor.

If so,

let a pure nazirite come

with regard to shaving the entire head

and derive it from an impure nazirite

let a pure nazirite return and derive from an impure nazirite the requirement to shave the entire head]:

Just as,

a nazirite who is

impure,

when he shaves,

if he left two hairs, he has accomplished nothing

he has accomplished nothing], as it is stated: “On the seventh day he shall shave it”—

here too,

with regard to a pure nazirite,

if he left two hairs, he has accomplished nothing.

.

Abaye inquired:

He was uncertain:

A nazirite who shaved and

did not shave properly, but

left two hairs,

and refrained from shaving them until

his head grew back, and then shaved them

only those two hairs,

what is the law?

Do they prevent it—do the newly grown hairs on his head prevent the shaving of the two hairs from being effective, since when he came to shave those two hairs his head was already full of new hair, and the shaving of those two hairs was not considered shaving the hair of his head—

or do they not prevent the earlier two hairs from being considered shaved?

Or not?

Rava inquired:

A nazirite who shaved

the hair of his head

and left two hairs,

and

afterward

shaved one

of them,

and

afterward

one fell out

by itself—

what is the law?

Should we say that since two hairs remained, but he did not shave both of them, only one, this is not considered shaving, because only shaving two hairs is considered an act of shaving?

Or perhaps we should say that since, when he shaved the one hair, there were two hairs on his head, the shaving of the one hair is considered an act of shaving; and since the final remaining hair does not prevent the shaving of his entire head from being considered valid, it is considered as though he shaved all the hair of his head.

He said

he challenged

Rav Aḥa of Difti to Ravina:

Was Rava asking whether a nazirite who

shaved one hair at a time

each hair separately]

was asking

whether his shaving is valid!?

Surely it is obvious that shaving each hair separately is called shaving, as long as there are two hairs on his head. Therefore, it is obvious that when he shaves one of the final two hairs, it is considered shaving the entire head! What, then, was Rava uncertain about?

Rather, say that Rava’s inquiry was as follows: One who left two hairs on his head, and

one fell out

first,

and

then

afterward

he shaved

the

one

that remained—

what is the law?

Do we say:

On the one hand, he is shaving the final hair of the two hairs that he had left unshaved during the initial shaving, and it is therefore considered as though he shaved all the hair of his head?

Or perhaps

now, in any event,

when he comes to shave the final hair, the measure of shaving

“of hair” is not present here?

He said to him: There is no shaving here,

because

there is no hair here!

The Gemara challenges his statement:

But

if there is no hair here,

is it possible that

there is shaving here!?

If so, why did he need to say that there is no shaving here?

And we answer:

This is what he is saying:

Even though

ultimately

there is no hair here,

since he shaved the final hair that had remained, nevertheless

there is no mitzva shaving here,

because the measure of shaving is only with at least two hairs.

Mishna:

A nazirite may shampoo

his head with natron and earth to clean his head,

and may rub

his hair [separating it with his hand]. Although hairs sometimes fall out in this manner, since he does not intend to remove the hairs, he is permitted to do so, in accordance with the principle that “an unintended act is permitted.”

But he may not comb

his hair with a comb, as the Gemara explains the reason.

Gemara:

The Gemara raises a difficulty concerning the Mishna, which distinguishes between shampooing his hair and combing it:

Regarding what we learned: “A nazirite

may shampoo and rub”—

whose view is this

according to whose method is it]?

It is certainly the view of

Rabbi Shimon, as

he disagreed with Rabbi Yehuda concerning all prohibitions of the Torah and

said: An unintended act is permitted.

But regarding what we learned:

“

But he may not comb”—

this comes according to the Rabbis, that is, Rabbi Yehuda, who disagreed with him throughout the Torah and holds that “an unintended act is prohibited.” Can it be said that the

first clause

of our Mishna is according to the view of

Rabbi Shimon

and

the

second clause

is according to the view of

the Rabbis

and

is?

Rabba said

and resolved the difficulty:

Rabba:

The entire

Mishna is indeed according to the view of

Rabbi Shimon.

it is.

Rather,

anyone who combs

the hair of his head

to remove loose hairs

hairs that are not firmly attached and are easily pulled out]

intends to remove them.

Mishna:

Rabbi Yishmael says: He may not shampoo with earth, because it removes the hair.

Gemara:

They raised an inquiry before them:

How should we understand what we learned in our Mishna?

Does the phrase

“because it removes the hair”

is what we learned, meaning literally, because it removes the hair?

Or perhaps: A nazirite may not shampoo with any type of earth

or perhaps

because of the earth itself,

“because

the earth

that removes

is what we learned”—that is, even with earth that does not remove hair, the Sages decreed that a nazirite may not shampoo, as a decree because of earth that does remove hair.

And we explain:

What practical difference is there?

For example, where there is earth that does not remove hair

whether it is permitted to shampoo with earth known not to remove hair]; because:

If you say

“because it removes”

is what we learned,

then

where we know that it does not remove hair

with earth known not to remove hair],

it is properly

permitted.

But if you say

“because of the earth that removes hair is what we learned,” then

the nazirite may shampoo with earth

not at all,

as explained.

And we conclude:

Teyku!

Mishna:

A nazirite who was drinking wine all day,

and he was warned only once,

is liable only

to lashes

once.

But if

they said to him:

“Do not drink,”

“Do not drink,” and

he drank,

that is, they warned him between each drinking,

he is liable for each one,

for each act of drinking, because the warnings divide them.

And likewise, if

the

nazirite

was shaving

his head

all day

that is, shaving one hair after another throughout the entire day],

he is liable only

to lashes

once.

But if

they said to him:

“Do not shave,”

“Do not shave,” and

he shaved,

he

is liable for each one,

because the warnings divide his liabilities for lashes.

And likewise, if

he was rendering himself impure through contact with the dead all day, he is liable only once.

They said to him:

“Do not defile yourself,”

“Do not defile yourself,”

and he defiled himself; he is liable for each one,

and the Gemara on 42b will explain in what manner he is liable when the warnings divide the acts.