Nazir 58a — the Talmud in English

rounding the entire head is called rounding” is a dispute between tannaim: are we to say that the tannaim of the following beraitot disagreed concerning rounding the entire head, whether it is called rounding!? It is written in the section of the afflicted person [Leviticus 14:9]: “And it shall be on the seventh day [of the counting of an afflicted person after he became pure from his tzara'at], he shall shave all his hair, his head and his beard and his eyebrows and all his hair he shall shave.” And in our discussion it will be explained why the Torah needed—after it included all the hair of the body in the verse’s statement, “he shall shave all his hair”—to specify his head and his beard, when these are included among the other hair. For the Sages taught: “ His head”— what does it come to teach!? Is it not included in “his hair”? Why did the verse specify and say, “His head ”!? As it is stated: " You shall not round off the corner of your head" - One might even say

every

leper as well

that he should not shave around his head, but only the rest of his hair. Therefore,

the verse says: “

his head,”

which is superfluous, in order to teach that the leper shaves around his head, for a positive commandment overrides a negative commandment.

And another [beraita] teaches: “

his head”—

what does it come to teach!?

Since it was stated concerning the nazirite: “

A razor shall not pass over his head,”

one might even say that a nazirite

within the period of his naziriteship—when he is

a leper as well,

who should not fulfill the mitzva of the leper’s shaving — in order not to violate this prohibition, since the positive commandment “He shall be holy; he shall let the hair of his head grow freely” is added to it, and a positive commandment does not override a negative commandment and a positive commandment—

Therefore

the verse says: “

his head,”

which is superfluous, in order to teach that even a leper who is a nazirite shaves his head with a razor.

What, is it not a dispute between tannaim,

that is: Is it not necessary to say that the basis of the dispute between the beraitot as to whether “his head” teaches the setting aside of a negative commandment and a positive commandment, or the setting aside of a negative commandment alone, is the law of “surrounding the entire head”!?

For

according to the one who says that “

his head” increases the shaving of the

nazirite

which is prohibited by a negative commandment and a positive commandment, it is because

he holds: “

Shaving the entire head is not considered surrounding.”

And since he can surround it in this manner, surely the Torah did not permit the leper to surround it in the prohibited manner—that is, by first surrounding the sidelocks. Necessarily,

when the verse came

of “his head”—for a leper who is a nazirite—it came

to set aside the negative commandment and the positive commandment

of the nazirite’s shaving, and not the negative commandment alone.

But the other one—

who holds that “his head” increases the surrounding of the head, which is prohibited by a negative commandment alone—

holds: “

Shaving the entire head is considered surrounding,”

and in any manner in which he shaves, he violates a prohibition.

And

therefore we must say that

when the verse came,

only

to set aside a mere negative commandment

a negative commandment alone] and to make known to us that “shaving the entire head is considered surrounding,” but to set aside a negative commandment and a positive commandment, this is not learned from “his head.”

Rava said,

he rejected this:

Rava:

No,

everyone—

even according to the one who holds that “his head” came to permit surrounding—

“shaving the entire head is not considered surrounding,”

and the verse did not come to permit him to shave his head by way of shaving the entire head and to teach us that shaving the entire head is considered surrounding—

And when the verse came—

according to him—for

a case in which he surrounded

his sidelocks first

and finally shaved

the rest of the hairs on his head; that is, to permit him, if he wishes, to shave not by way of shaving the entire head—that is, first to surround his sidelocks and then to shave his head—

And the verse came to introduce the following novelty:

Since, if he shaved it all at one time, he would not be liable,

if he surrounded and finally shaved

he is likewise not liable,

that is: The novelty of the Torah is that although setting aside the prohibition is not needed for fulfilling the positive commandment, since he can shave by “shaving the entire head,” which is permitted, nevertheless it is permitted for him to shave even in this manner, which is prohibited.

And it is concerning this that the tan nay who holds that “his head” teaches the setting aside of a positive commandment and a negative commandment in the shaving of a leper who is a nazirite disagrees, for according to him, surely the Torah did not permit surrounding when he can fulfill the mitzva of shaving in a permitted manner; necessarily, the verse came concerning the shaving of a nazirite, and to set aside a negative commandment and a positive commandment.

And we question:

And did the verse write this—

that is: Can one say that the verse came to set aside the prohibition of surrounding when he can fulfill the positive commandment of shaving in a permitted manner!?

For Reish Lakish said: Wherever you find a positive commandment and a negative commandment, if you can fulfill both, it is preferable; and if not, let the positive commandment come and override the negative commandment,

and if so, since he can fulfill both—for example, if he shaves first and afterward surrounds, which is shaving the entire head and is not considered surrounding—the positive commandment of the leper’s shaving does not override the prohibition!?

Rather,

the Gemara rejects in another manner what we wished to explain—that the tannaim dispute the law of “shaving the entire head”:

Everyone holds: “

Shaving the entire head is considered surrounding,”

and this follows from logic alone, and no verse was needed to teach us this; for is it because he added further shaving that he would not be liable for the sidelocks?

And they disagree in this: The one who holds that “his head” teaches the setting aside of a negative commandment alone holds that here the Torah taught us that “a positive commandment overrides a negative commandment”; while the one who holds that “his head” teaches the setting aside of a negative commandment and a positive commandment holds that “a positive commandment overrides a negative commandment” is learned from another place, as he explains and proceeds, and necessarily the verse came to teach that, in the case of a leper who is a nazirite, even a negative commandment and a positive commandment are set aside.

And the Gemara explains:

And the one who applies the verse to set aside a negative commandment and a positive commandment

[and the tan nay who explains “his head” as teaching that a positive commandment overrides a negative commandment and a positive commandment],

a mere negative commandment

which is overridden by a positive commandment,

from where does he derive it

[from where does he derive it]!?

He derives it from the verse of “

fringes” —

“twisted threads.” —

For the verse says: “

You shall not wear shaatnez

wool and linen together. You shall make for yourself twisted threads on the four corners of the garment with which you cover yourself”—

and it is taught:

The passage of tzitzit was juxtaposed to the passage of shaatnez in order to teach:

“You shall not wear shaatnez; behold, you shall make twisted threads for yourself from them,”

for the positive commandment of tzitzit overrides the prohibition “You shall not wear shaatnez.”

The Gemara adds and explains: And

the one for whom it emerges—

that a positive commandment overrides a negative commandment—

from “

his head,”

what is the reason that it does not emerge for him from “twisted threads”

[why does he not learn it from there]!?

He can say to you,

the tan nay of that beraita: The juxtaposition of the passage of tzitzit to the prohibition of shaatnez

came for the matter of Rava

[it came to teach Rava’s ruling]!

For Rava raises a contradiction

[he raised a contradiction between the verses]:

It is written

in the passage of tzitzit: “

And they shall place them on the corner of the garment

[a thread of blue],” and it implies that he should give it from

the kind of the corner,

that is: From whatever kind the corner is made, from that kind he should make its tzitzit. If he made the corner from silk, kalakh, and serikin, he should likewise make the tzitzit from that kind.

And

on the other hand

it is written “[A0132][You shall not wear shaatnez]

[

wool and linen together. You shall make for yourself twisted threads,” and from the juxtaposition of the passages one should learn that he should give tzitzit of wool or linen specifically, even if the corner was of another kind—

You shall make twisted threads for yourself.” From the juxtaposition of the passages, one should derive that the ritual fringes must specifically be made of wool or linen, even if the corner was made of another material.

How then

shall these two verses be fulfilled: tzitzit of

wool and linen

indeed

exempt

the garment from its obligation

whether of their kind

[whether the corner was of that kind]

or not of their kind—

whereas

the other kinds,

only

of their kind

are

exempting,

since it is “the kind of the corner”; but

not of their kind

[when the corner is not of that kind],

they do not exempt.

The Gemara adds to explain the positions of the tannaim of the two beraitot, and asks:

And this tan nay, who derives from “

his head”

a mere negative commandment

[a negative commandment alone—that is, that the verse speaks of the surrounding of the head in every leper], behold, his words are difficult: How can we learn from here that everywhere a positive commandment overrides a negative commandment, since the prohibition of surrounding the head is not “equal for all,” as women are not prohibited by it, and from where is it known that even a negative commandment that is equal for all—which is more severe—is overridden by a positive commandment!?

Necessarily, his reason is that with regard to a prohibition that is not equal for all, even a negative commandment and a positive commandment are set aside by a positive commandment [as he explains and proceeds], and all the more so a negative commandment alone. If so, if “his head” is not needed for a negative commandment that is not equal for all—for this is obvious—apply it to a negative commandment that is equal for all, which too is overridden by a positive commandment.

And the Gemara explains the source for this: That

a positive commandment comes

and overrides a negative commandment and a positive commandment

that are not equal for all, such as those that do not apply to women—

from where do we know this?

And we explain:

It emerges for him—

that a negative commandment and a positive commandment that are not equal for all are overridden by a positive commandment—

from “

his beard,”

as it is taught:

“His beard”

what does it come to teach,

when it has already been stated, “He shall shave all his hair”?

Since it was stated

for the priests: “

They shall not shave the corner of their beard,”

one might even say

when the priest is

a leper—

so,

that he should not shave his beard because he is prohibited by a negative commandment and a positive commandment from destroying his beard, therefore

the verse says

concerning the leper, “

his beard,” in order to include the leper who is a priest, that he should shave his beard.

Thus we have learned that a negative commandment and a positive commandment that are not equal for all, such as the destruction of the beard, which does not apply to women, are overridden by a positive commandment.

And since the Gemara brought the beraita in which we derive from “his beard” a negative commandment and a positive commandment concerning the destruction of the beard, we ask according to the position of the tan nay of the second beraita:

And the one who derives from “

his head”

a positive commandment and a negative commandment

of the nazirite, which are overridden by the positive commandment,

should derive it from “

his beard,”

and say: Just as the negative commandment and positive commandment of destroying the beard are overridden, so too the negative commandment and positive commandment of the prohibition of shaving for a nazirite are overridden; why do I need “his head”!?

And we answer:

And according to your reasoning,

according to your reasoning, in which you come to compare the negative commandment and positive commandment of a nazirite with the negative commandment and positive commandment of a priest, and to learn that just as the former are overridden, so too the latter—behold, this is difficult for you:

That

which we have established generally

[what is accepted by us everywhere]: