Talmud Nazir (E)

(15) Since they already know that a leper may use a razor.
(16) Which applies to all persons. Lev. XIX, 27.
(17)  Viz. the fact that the injunction to the leper to shave overrides any prohibition that might otherwise prevent him
from so doing.
(18) Lev. XXI, 5; of the priests.
(19) Seeing that either case could be inferred from the other.
(20) I.e., that shaving the head is permitted even to an ordinary person, only the rounding of the corners without the rest
of the head being forbidden because it was a heathen practice. Whether this is in fact the case is discussed infra 57b-58,
both sides of the question receiving arguments in its favour.
(21) Enabling us to infer that even the shaving of the whole head is also forbidden an ordinary person.
Talmud - Mas. Nazir 41b
Talmud - Mas. Nazir 41b
Talmud - Mas. Nazir 41b
Again, had ‘his head’ been mentioned and not ‘his beard’ I would have understood that two things
are implied, first that the positive command [to shave] overrides the prohibition, and secondly that
the rounding of the whole head is considered [to infringe the prohibition against] rounding, but there
would still remain [the question], how do we know that a razor must be used?
1
 And so the
All-Merciful Law mentions his beard.
2
 
    And whence does R. Eliezer learn that a positive command overrides a prohibition? — He infers it
from the [command to wear] twisted cords. For it has been taught: Thou shalt not wear a mingled
stuff, [linen and wool together];
3
____________________
(1) For there the expression ‘rounding’ is used, and in fact ‘rounding’ is forbidden even if no razor is used.
(2) In this case the expression is ‘shave’ which has been shown (supra 40b) to imply the use of a razor.
(3) Deut. XXII, 11. The next quotation is the beginning of the next verse.
Talmud - Mas. Nazir 42a
Talmud - Mas. Nazir 42a
Talmud - Mas. Nazir 42a
but nevertheless, Thou shalt make thee twisted cords of them.
1
 
    The Master said: ‘If any one of them polled without a razor, or left behind two hairs, his act is
invalid.’
2
 R. Aha the son of R. Ika said: This implies that Torah-law accepts [the principle that] the
majority
3
 counts as the whole.
4
 In what way [does this follow]? — From the fact that the
All-Merciful reveals in the cafe of the nazirite that, On the seventh day he shall shave it,
5
 [for we
infer that] here only [is his duty unfulfilled] until the whole [has been shaved],
6
 whilst elsewhere the
majority counts as the whole.
 
    R. Jose son of R. Hanina demurred to this: But this [verse] is speaking of a defiled nazirite?
7
 
        In  the  West
8
 they laughed at this [objection]. Consider, [they said]. That a defiled nazirite is
required to use a razor [in shaving his head] is inferred from a ritually pure nazirite.
9
 [It stands to
reason then that] we can now infer the rule of the ritually pure nazirite from the defiled nazirite, viz.
that just as when the latter leaves two hairs standing his act is invalid, so when the former leaves two
hairs standing his act is invalid.
 
    Abaye propounded [the following question]: What [would be the Law] if a nazirite shaved and left
two hairs standing, and then when his head showed a new growth shaved off [those two hairs],
would this hold up [the termination of the naziriteship] or not?
 
    Raba propounded [the following question]: What [would be the law] if a nazirite shaved, leaving
two hairs standing,
10
 and then shaved one and one fell out?
11

---

 
        R.  Aha  of  Difti
12
 asked Rabina: Has Raba any doubt in the case where hair is shaved one at a
time?
13
 — [He replied], We must say then, [the question arises if] one fell out and he shaved the
other.
14
 
    He then replied:
15
 Here is no polling, for here is no hair.
 
    But if there is no hair here, then polling has been performed?
16
 — The meaning is: Although there
is no hair left, the duty to poll has not been validly observed.
17
 
    MISHNAH. A NAZIRITE MAY SHAMPOO [HIS HAIR] AND PART IT [WITH HIS
FINGERS] BUT MAY NOT COMB IT.
18
 GEMARA. HE MAY SHAMPOO [HIS HAIR] AND
PART IT [WITH HIS FINGERS]. Who is the author of this opinion? — It is R. Simeon who says a
breach of the law which is not intended is allowed.
19
 BUT HE MAY NOT COMB IT; here we come
round to the opinion of the Rabbis.
20
 [Are we then to understand that] the first clause is by R.
Simeon and the next one by the Rabbis? — Rabbah replied: The whole is by R. Simeon, [for] a man
who combs his hair intends to remove loose strands.
21
 
    MISHNAH. R. ISHMAEL SAID: HE IS NOT TO CLEANSE IT WITH EARTH BECAUSE IT
CAUSES THE HAIR TO FALL OUT.
 
    GEMARA. The Academy wished to know whether we read ‘because it causes the hair to fall out,’
or ‘because of [the kinds of earth that] cause the hair to fall out.’ Where would a practical difference
arise? In the case where there is a variety of earth that does not cause it to fall out . If you say that we
read ‘because it causes it to fall out,’ then wherever we know that it does not cause it to fall out, it
could be used. But if you say ‘because of [the kinds of earth that] cause it to fall out’ that he may not
use any kind at all! This was left undecided.
 
    MISHNAH. A NAZIRITE WHO HAS DRUNK WINE ALL DAY LONG HAS INCURRED A
SINGLE PENALTY ONLY. IF HE WAS TOLD ‘DO NOT DRINK,’ ‘DO NOT DRINK’ AND HE
DRANK,
22
 HE HAS INCURRED A PENALTY FOR EACH [WARNING].
 
    FOR POLLING ALL DAY LONG HE INCURS ONE PENALTY ONLY. IF HE WAS TOLD,
‘DO NOT POLL,’ ‘DO NOT POLL AND HE DID POLL,
22
 HE HAS INCURRED A PENALTY
FOR EACH [WARNING]. FOR DEFILING HIMSELF [BY CONTACT] WITH THE DEAD ALL
DAY LONG HE INCURS ONE PENALTY ONLY. IF HE WAS TOLD, DO NOT DEFILE
YOURSELF, DO NOT DEFILE YOURSELF, AND HE DID DEFILE HIMSELF,
23
 HE HAS
INCURRED A PENALTY FOR EACH [WARNING].
____________________
(1)  From the juxtaposition of the two laws it is inferred that the second is to be carried out even at the cost of
transgressing the first. A further discussion of this point will be found infra (58a-b).
(2) Supra 40a.
(3) Or the larger portion.
(4) I.e., is legally equivalent to the whole.
(5) Num. VI, 9. This sentence is a superfluous repetition of the previous one, ‘He shall shave his head on the day of his
cleansing’, and is therefore taken as indicating that the whole head must be shaved
(6) Because here we have a special indication that the larger portion is insufficient
(7) Whereas according to the Baraitha, even a clean nazirite who leaves two hairs standing has not shaved effectively.
(8) I.e., the Palestinian Academies. [The reference elsewhere is to R. Jose b. Hanina. Here it may be to R. Eleazar. V.
Sanh. 17b.]
(9) The razor mentioned in Num. VI, 5, refers to an undefiled nazirite.
(10) So that the polling is invalid and must be repeated on the remaining two hairs.

---