Talmud Nazir (E)

inferred?
13
 — The priest [leper] cannot be inferred from the nazirite [leper], since the latter can
secure release [from his nazirite vow].
14
 The nazirite [leper] cannot be inferred from the priest
[leper], since the [latter] prohibition does not apply equally to all people.
15
 [Finally,] we cannot infer
from these a rule for other cases,
16
 since the previously mentioned objections could be raised.
17
 
    Rab said: A man may thin [the hair of] his whole body with a razor. An objection was raised. [It
has been taught:] One who removes [the hair of] the armpits or the private parts is to be scourged?
18
— This [refers to removal] by a razor whereas the other of [Rab refers to removal] by a scissors. But
Rab also mentions a razor? — [He means closely] as though with a razor.
 
    R. Hiyya b. Abba, citing R. Johanan said: One who removes [the hair of] the armpits or of the
private parts is to be scourged. An objection was raised. [It has been taught:] Removal of hair is not
[forbidden] by the Torah, but only by the Soferim?
19
 — What he too meant by scourging is
[scourging inflicted] by the Rabbis .
20
____________________
(1) For your question assumes that there is no difference between this case and others.
(2)  It refers to priests but not to ordinary Israelites. A prohibition which applies to all equally must be considered of
greater force and, therefore, if accompanied by a positive command, it cannot be overruled.
(3)  But anyone can become a nazirite and so the nazirite prohibition is of greater force, and a rule which applies to
priests cannot be taken as applying to nazirites.
(4) For the priest leper can be inferred from the nazirite leper.
(5)  Our text repeats here the Baraitha about a priest leper quoted before: Why does Scripture mention ‘his beard’?
Because it says, neither shall they share off the corners of their beard, it might be thought that the same is true of a priest
who is a leper, and so Scripture says ‘his beard’. And how do we know that this must be done with a razor? It has been
taught: This passage appears to have been omitted by all the commentators and so we omit it with the Bail.
(6) Lev. XXI, 5.
(7) Lev. XIX, 27 of an ordinary Israelite. Scissors do not mar.
(8) V. Glos.
(9) And the phrase, ‘his beard’ teaches us that the leper too must shave with a razor; cf. supra 40b.
(10) By inference from the verse, ‘ye shall not round the corners of your head’ as in the first Baraitha supra.
(11) From the nazirite as in the second Baraitha.
(12) I.e., seeing that the method of inference is the same in both cases, we should have inferred both.
(13) What need is there of ‘his beard’? The priest-leper can be inferred from the naziriteleper.
(14) By applying to a sage. And since the prohibition is not a permanent one, it might be thought that only here can a
positive command override a prohibition accompanied by a positive command but not in the case of a priest-Ieper.
(15)  But only to priests, whereas anyone can become a nazirite. Hence if the fact that a priest-Ieper may shave were
taught, it would not be possible to infer in the case of a nazirite-leper that the prohibition and positive command to let his
hair grow are overruled by the positive command for a leper to shave.
(16)  Lit., ‘we cannot infer other cases from them’. I.e., that in all cases a positive command overrides a prohibition
accompanied by a positive command.
(17) Viz.: That the case of the nazirite and the priest are special instances and cannot be generalised.
(18) For infringing the prohibition against a man appearing as a woman; v. infra.
(19) Lit. ‘by the Scribes’ (v. Sanh., Sonc. ed., p. 360, n.7). Why then does R. Johanan say that the penalty is scourging.
(20)  I.e. not the statutory 39 stripes, but a scourging prescribed at the discretion of the Rabbis for transgressing a
non-Biblical law.
Talmud - Mas. Nazir 59a
Talmud - Mas. Nazir 59a
Talmud - Mas. Nazir 59a
    Others say [that the above argument took the following form]. R. Hiyya b. Abba, citing R.
Johanan, said: One who removes [the hair of] the armpits or the private parts is to be scourged
because of [infringing the prohibition] neither shall a man put on a woman's garment.
1
 An objection
was raised. [We have been taught:] Removal of hair is not [forbidden] by the Torah, but only by the

---

Soferim? — That statement [of R. Johanan] agrees with the following Tanna. For it has been taught:
One who removes [the hair of] the armpits or the private parts infringes the prohibition, neither shall
a man put on a woman's garment.
 
    What interpretation does the first Tanna
2
 put on [the verse] ‘neither shall a man put on a woman's
garment’? — He requires it for the following that has been taught: Why does Scripture say, A
woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man [etc.]?
3
 If merely [to teach] that a man
should not put on a woman's garment, nor a woman a man s garment, behold it says [of this action]
this is an abomination
4
 and there is no abomination here!
5
 It must therefore mean that a man should
not put on a woman's garment and mix with women, nor a woman a man's garment and mix with
men. R. Eliezer b. Jacob says: How do we know that a woman should not go to war bearing arms?
Scripture says, ‘A woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man.’ [The words] ‘Neither
shall a man put on a woman's garment,’ [signify] that a man is not to use cosmetics as women do.
 
    R. Nahman said that a nazirite is permitted [to remove the hair of his armpits],
6
 but this is not the
accepted ruling. The Rabbis said to R. Simeon b. Abba: We have seen that R. Johanan has no [hair in
his armpits].
7
 [R. Simeon] said to then,: It has fallen out because of his old age.
 
    A certain man was sentenced to scourging before R. Ammi, and when his armpits became bared,
8
he noticed that they were not shaven. R. Ammi said to then,: Let him go free. This man must be a
member of the [learned] fraternity.
9
 
    Rab asked R. Hiyya whether [it was permitted] to shave
10
 [the armpits]. He replied: It is
forbidden. [Rab] then asked: But it grows?
11
 He replied: SOn of great ancestors,
12
 there is a limit. If
it continues to grow [beyond this] it falls out.
 
    Rab asked R. Hiyya whether [it was permitted] to scratch [the armpits to remove the hair]. He
replied: It is forbidden. [To the further question] whether he might [scratch] through his garment,
13
he replied that it was permitted. Some say that he asked him whether he might [scratch] through his
garment during prayers
14
 and he replied that it was forbidden; but this is not the accepted ruling.
15
____________________
(1) Deut. XXII, 5. It was customary only for women to shave the hair of the body.
(2) Who holds that the removal of this hair is not forbidden by the Torah.
(3) Ibid.
(4) The end of the verse reads: ‘whosoever doeth these things is an abomination to the Lord’. This word, ‘abomination’,
is used of forbidden intercourse.
(5) The mere act of putting on the garments is not wrong.
(6) At the same time as he shaves his head when he would in any case be unattractive.
(7) How is it possible, if the removal is forbidden.
(8) As he was stripped to receive the punishment.
(9) As the fact that his armpits were unshaven proved.
(10) With scissors.
(11)  Uncomfortably long, and one should be allowed to remove it for the sake of comfort without transgressing the
prohibition.
(12) Lit., ‘Son of princes’. A favourite appellation of Rab, used by his uncle R. Hiyya.
(13) I.e. whether he might scratch on top of his shirt, without touching the bare flesh.
(14) To remove a source of irritation. It is forbidden to touch the bare skin during prayers.
(15) I.e. scratching through a garment is allowed.
Talmud - Mas. Nazir 59b
Talmud - Mas. Nazir 59b
Talmud - Mas. Nazir 59b
MISHNAH. IF ONE OF THEM DIES;
1
 R. JOSHUA SAID THAT [THE OTHER] SHOULD SEEK

---