Nazir 59a (נט.) — the Talmud in English

Some say:

thus

said Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba in the name of Rabbi Yohanan:

One who removes

the hair of

the armpit and

the hair of

the pubic region

is

liable to lashes because of “

A man shall not wear a woman's garment.”

And this is how we raise the objection: Since Rabbi Yohanan explicitly said, “He is liable to lashes because of ‘A man shall not wear a woman's garment,’” it follows that one violates this prohibition and is liable to lashes for it by Torah law; therefore, we ask:

The baraita raises an objection: Removing the hair

of the armpit and the pubic region

is not a matter of Torah law, but rather a matter of rabbinic ordinance!?

And this is how we answer:

He—

Rabbi Yohanan, who holds that one is liable by Torah law—

follows the opinion of this tanna, as it is taught:

One who removes

the hair of

the armpit and

the hair of

the pubic region violates the prohibition of “A man shall not wear a woman's garment,”

and this wording indicates that the prohibition is by Torah law.

The Gemara asks:

And the first tanna—

that is, the tanna of the preceding baraita, who permits removing hair by Torah law—

What does he expound from this verse: “

A man shall not wear

a woman's garment”?

What does he derive from it,

that is, what does the Torah come to prohibit if not a man beautifying himself with women's forms of adornment!?

The Gemara explains: The verse “A man shall not wear” does not come to prohibit a man from beautifying himself with women's forms of adornment. Rather,

it is needed for that which is taught:

It is stated in the Torah: “

There shall not be a man's implement upon a woman

and a man shall not wear a woman's garment.”

What is the verse coming to teach?

If

the verse is understood

literally—as meaning that a man may not wear a woman's garment, and a woman may not wear a man's garment—

this cannot be said, for

it has already been stated

concerning this in the Torah:

“It is an abomination” [“for whoever does these things is an abomination to the Lord your God”],

and

there is no abomination here.

Rather, a man may not wear a woman's garment

in order to resemble a woman

and sit among women

in order to engage in sexual relations with them;

and a woman

may not wear

a man's garment and sit among men.

Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov

disagrees and

says:

From where is it derived that a woman may not go out with weapons to war? The verse states: “

There shall not be a man's implement upon a woman.” “

And a man shall not wear a woman's garment”—

what does this come to teach?

That a man may not beautify himself with women's forms of adornment,

such as applying eye makeup, rouge, or removing the hair of the armpit and pubic region.

Rav Naḥman said: In the case of a nazirite,

when he shaves as a mitzva shaving—for he also shaves his head—he is

permitted

to shave even the hair in those areas, because this is not considered beautification or an adornment.

The Gemara rejects his statement:

And the halakha does not follow him,

Rav Naḥman; a nazirite, too, is prohibited from shaving in those areas.

The Sages said to Rabbi Shimon bar Abba:

We saw [

we observed]

that Rabbi Yohanan does not have

the hair of the armpit and pubic region; yet Rabbi Yohanan himself said that it is prohibited to remove it!?

He said to them

Rabbi Shimon bar Abba, referring to those Sages:

They fell out because of old age,

his hairs; he did not remove them with his hands.

There was a certain man who was liable for lashes [

he was liable to receive lashes]

before

—that is, in the presence of—

Rabbi Ami,

in Rabbi Ami's court:

When they stripped off his garments in order to flog him,

his armpit was exposed,

and

he saw him

Rabbi Ami

not shaving [

his armpit was exposed, and Rabbi Ami noticed that he did not shave his hair]. “

Rabbi Ami said to them

who were about to flog him:

Leave him; he is one of the scholars” [

leave him, for he is one of the members of the scholarly community].

Rav asked Rabbi Hiyya: What is the ruling with regard to shaving

the hair of the armpit and pubic region?

He said—

Rabbi Hiyya

answered him,

Rabbi Hiyya responding to Rav:

It is prohibited.

Rav said

in astonishment

to him,

Rav addressing Rabbi Hiyya:

But it grows

—the hair continues to grow and will eventually cause him discomfort, and this is not called beautification or adornment, since he shaves only to avoid discomfort.

He said to him,

Rabbi Hiyya to Rav:

Son of distinguished ancestors [

son of great men]!

It has a limit

the hair in those areas; it does not continue growing like the hair of the head. Rather,

whenever it grows [

when the hair reaches the limit at which it causes a person discomfort], it

falls out,

and it will not ultimately cause discomfort.

Furthermore,

Rav asked Rabbi Hiyya:

What is the ruling with regard to rubbing and rubbing oneself

in those areas in order to make the hair fall out?

Rabbi Hiyya said to him,

Rabbi Hiyya to Rav:

It is prohibited.

Rav returned and asked: What is the ruling with regard to rubbing

with his garment

those areas in order to make the hair fall out—

what is the ruling?

Rabbi Hiyya said to him,

Rabbi Hiyya to Rav:

It is permitted,

since he is touching the garment and not the hair.

Some say:

this is how

Rav asked

Rabbi Hiyya:

When praying, with his garment—

what is the ruling?

When he is praying, may he rub his garment in order to make the lice fall from it, since he is not touching his flesh?

He said to him,

Rabbi Hiyya to Rav:

It is prohibited.

The Gemara disagrees with Rabbi Hiyya:

And the halakha does not follow him,

Rabbi Hiyya.