Nazir 42a — the Talmud in English

To teach you: although you are forbidden to wear shaatnez,

“there are twisted threads”,

so

“you shall make for yourself from them”,

even with the prohibition of shaatnez. Since the positive mitzva of tzitzit overrides the prohibition of “You shall not wear shaatnez.”

The Master said

in the Mishna in Negaim that was brought above, 40a:

And all of them—

the Nazirite, the metzora, and the Levites—

who shaved without a razor, or who left two hairs,

which they did not shave,

have done nothing.

Rav Aḥa, son of Rav Ika, said:

This says,

from here we learn the principle:

The performance of

most of it

of a thing is considered

as

the performance of

all of it, by Torah law

[it is a matter of Torah law].

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

And we explain:

from where

[is this law inferred] from here?

Because the Torah said: “And if a dead person dies upon him suddenly, and he defiles the head of his consecration. And he shall shave his head on the day of his purification—

on the seventh day he shall shave it.”

And the Torah repeated “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.”

And it follows that Scripture needed to repeat and say that shaving most of the head is not sufficient, but he must shave all of it—

since the Merciful One revealed,

because the Torah needed to reveal

concerning

the shaving

of a Nazirite,

and to say this in an additional verse,

“on the seventh day he shall shave it”,

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

We have therefore learned from here that only

here,

concerning the obligatory shaving of a Nazirite,

is it that

most of it is not considered 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 must say that

most of it

is considered

as all of it.

Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Ḥanina challenged him,

concerning what we said, that the source for the fact that he does not fulfill his obligation through shaving only most of the head is what is stated, “on the seventh day he shall shave it”:

But

this

verse—

is written concerning an impure Nazirite!

And if so, from where do we know that even a pure Nazirite must shave all of it?

For the meaning of the Mishna in Negaim is that even a pure Nazirite, if he left two hairs on him, has done nothing!?

They laughed at this in the West

[they laughed in the Land of Israel at the challenge of Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Ḥanina], because:

since,

for this one who is

an impure Nazirite,

who shaves only

with a razor—

from where do we know it?

Surely

from a pure Nazirite—

concerning whom it is stated, “A razor shall not pass over his head,” teaching that his obligatory shaving is with a razor—

he derives

it.

For concerning the shaving of an impure Nazirite, there is no verse teaching that his shaving is specifically with a razor.

And 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] with regard to shaving the entire head:

Just as,

just as a

impure

Nazirite, when he shaves,

if he left two hairs, he has done nothing

[he has done nothing], for it is stated, “on the seventh day he shall shave it,”

here

with a pure Nazirite

too: if he left two hairs, he has done nothing.

.

Abaye raised a question

and was uncertain:

a Nazirite who shaved and

did not shave well, but

left two hairs,

and delayed shaving them until his head again

grew, and he again shaved them,

only those two hairs,

what is the law?

Do they hold back,

do the hairs of the head that grew anew prevent the shaving of the two hairs, since at the time he came to shave those two hairs his head was already full of new hair, and the shaving of those two hairs did not acquire the designation of shaving the hair of his head—

or not,

do the new hairs of the head prevent the earlier two hairs from acquiring the designation of shaving?

Rava raised a question:

A Nazirite who shaved

the hair of his head

and left two hairs.

And

afterward

shaved one

of them.

And

after that

one fell out

by itself—

what is the law?

Shall we say: Since two hairs remained, and he shaved not both of them but only one, this is not considered shaving, because only the shaving of two hairs has the designation of shaving?

Or perhaps we shall say: Since at the time he shaved the one hair there were two hairs on his head, the shaving of the one hair has the designation of shaving, and since the last hair that remained does not prevent the designation of shaving his entire head, it is considered that he shaved all the hairs of his head.

He said

and challenged

Rav Aḥa of Difti to Ravina:

Is it that a Nazirite who

shaved hair by hair

[each hair separately]

is what Rava was asking

whether his shaving is valid!?

But surely it is the case that even 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 last two hairs, it is considered shaving the entire head! So what was Rava uncertain about?

Rather, say,

say that this is what Rava was asking: One who left two hairs on his head, and

one fell out

first,

and

afterward

he shaved

the

one

that remained—

what is the law?

Do we say:

On the one hand, he is shaving the last hair of the two hairs that he left unshaved at the time of the first shaving, and it is considered that he shaved all the hair of his head?

Or perhaps,

now, at any rate,

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

hair is not here?

He said to him: There is no shaving here,

since

there is no hair here!

And the Gemara challenges his words:

But

if there is no hair here,

is it possible that

there is shaving here!?

And if so, why was it necessary to say that there is no shaving here?

And we answer:

This is what he is saying—

Even though

in the end

there is no hair here,

since he shaved the last hair that remained, nevertheless

there is no mitzva of shaving here,

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

Mishna:

A Nazirite shampoos

his head with natron and earth to clean his head,

and separates

his hairs [separates them with his hand], and although hairs sometimes fall out through this, since he does not intend to make the hairs fall out, it is permitted to do this according to the principle that “an unintended act is permitted.”

But he may not comb

his hairs with a comb, as the reason is explained in the Gemara.

Gemara:

And the Gemara challenges the Mishna, which differentiated between shampooing his hairs and combing them:

For what we learned: “A Nazirite

shampoos and separates”—

whose view is it

[according to whose method is it]!?

Surely it is according to the view of

Rabbi Shimon, for he

disagreed with Rabbi Judah concerning all prohibitions in the Torah and

said: An unintended act is permitted.

But what we learned: “

But he may not comb”—

we come to the Rabbis,

that is, to Rabbi Judah, who disagreed with him throughout the Torah and holds, “An unintended act is prohibited”—and is it possible to say that

the first clause

of our Mishna is according to the view of

Rabbi Shimon

and

the

second clause

the latter clause

is according to the view of

the Rabbis!?

?

He said

and answered,

Rabba:

Actually,

the whole

of our Mishna is according to the view of

Rabbi Shimon.

Rather,

everyone who combs

the hair of his head

to remove the loose strands

[hairs that are not properly attached and are easy to tear loose]

intends [to remove them].

Mishna:

Rabbi Ishmael says: He may not shampoo with earth, because it causes the hair to fall out.

Gemara:

They raised a question before them,

how do we understand what we learned in our Mishna:

Does

“because it causes the hair to fall out”—

we learned

that is, in its straightforward sense, because it causes the hair to fall out,

or perhaps:

A Nazirite may not shampoo with any earth,

because of

the earth

that causes the hair to fall out—

we learned,

that is, even concerning earth that does not cause the hair to fall out, the Sages decreed that a Nazirite may not shampoo, as a decree because of earth that causes the hair to fall out.

And we explain:

What practical difference is there?

For example, where there is earth that does not cause the hair to fall out

[whether it is permitted to shampoo with earth that we know does not cause hair to fall out]; for:

If you say

“

because it causes the hair to fall out”

we learned,

then where we know that it does not cause the hair to fall out

[with earth that we know does not cause hair to fall out],

it is fine

to do so.

But if you say

“

because of that which causes the hair to fall out we learned,” then

not at all

may a Nazirite shampoo with earth, as explained.

And we conclude:

teyku!

Mishna:

A Nazirite who was drinking wine all day,

and they warned him only once,

is liable only for

lashes

one.

But if

they said to him: “

Do not drink,” “

Do not drink,”

and he drinks,

that is, they warned him between each drinking,

he is liable for each one and one,

for each drinking and each drinking, because the warnings divide them.

And likewise, if

the

Nazirite

was shaving

his head

all day

[that is, he shaved hair by hair throughout the entire day],

he is liable only for

lashes

one.

But if

they said to him: “

Do not shave,” “

Do not shave,”

and he shaves,

he

is liable for each one and one,

because the warnings divide the liabilities for lashes.

And likewise, if

he was defiling himself to the dead all day, he is liable only for one.

They said to him:

They said to him: “

Do not defile yourself,” “

Do not defile yourself,”

and he defiles himself, he is liable for each one and one,

and in the Gemara on 42b it will be explained in what manner he is liable when the warnings divide them.