Talmud Nazir (E)

Because we find elsewhere
14
 the verse, Neither shall they shave off the corners of their beards,
15
 it
might be thought that this applies even to [a priest who is] a leper. We are therefore told [that the
leper must shave] ‘his beard’.
16
 Whence [do we know] that he must use a razor? — It has been
taught: [The verse,] Neither shall they shave off the corners of their beards
17
 could mean that even if
they shaved it with scissors there would be a penalty, and so we are told [elsewhere], Neither shalt
thou mar [the corners of thy beard].
18
 [This last verse alone] could mean that even if he plucks it out
with tweezers or a rohitni there is a penalty, and so we are told, Neither shall they shave the corners
of their beards. How [do we make the inferences from these verses]? The kind of shaving that also
mars [the beard] is with a razor.
19
 
    But how does it follow?
20
 For may it not well be that even if [the leper] uses tweezers or a rohitni
he has carried out his religious duty, the purpose of the verse
21
 being to tell us that even if he uses a
razor there is no penalty? — I will explain. If you assume that even if he uses tweezers or a rohitni
he has carried out his religious duty, the verse should have remained silent on the subject
22
 and I
should have argued as follows. Seeing that a nazirite, who has done what is forbidden,
23
 is
nevertheless obliged [to use a razor], then [the leper] who is here doing a religious duty
24
 should
certainly [be allowed to use a razor].
____________________
(1) A nazirite or a levite who could not afford the necessary sacrifices was given no alternative but had to wait until he
could do so.
(2)  For a leper who was poor, special sacrifices of doves were permitted (v. Lev. XIV, 21ff.). Hence the leper is less
stringent than either of the others, and so should perhaps not be obliged to use a razor for his ritual shaving.
(3) Thus assuming that a leper certainly has to use a razor (v. supra 39b end). Raba b. Mesharsheya is here taking it for
granted that the two Baraithas to which he makes reference form a single text.
(4) For the gathering together of the three cases, nazirite, leper, and levites, into a single Baraitha is an indication that the
case that is not explicit is deducible from those that are.
(5) Since the argument from the levites or the nazirite fails completely. Even to an argument from the common properties
there is the objection of Raba of Barnesh. How then, Raba b. Mesharshaya asks, is the sequence of the two Baraithas to
be explained?
(6) Who do in fact deduce that a leper must use a razor from an independent source. V. infra.
(7) Who deduces that a leper must use a razor from the nazirite obligation to do so. V. infra 41a.
(8) This Mishnah is quoted simply in order to show the existence of a controversy between R. Eliezer and the Rabbis, the
Baraithas adduced to expound the sources of the controversy being anonymous.
(9) For rounding the corners of the head.
(10) Rohitni, usually a plane, here appears to mean some instrument for removing single hairs, since it is compared to a
tweezers. V. Jastrow s.v.
(11) Mak. 202.
(12) I.e., what is their source for the case of the leper?
(13) In Lev. XIV, 9, of the leper, for we already know that he must shave ‘all his hair’.
(14) Of the priests.
(15) Lev. XXI, 5.
(16) Even if he is a priest.
(17) Lev. XXI, 5.
(18) Of ordinary Israelites, not priests. Here the word ‘mar’ is used and a scissors does not ‘mar’.
(19) And since what is forbidden the ordinary person is prescribed for the leper, as is inferred in the previous Baraitha, a
leper can, nay must, use a razor.
(20) That he must use the razor.
(21) Which says that the leper must shave, and also that he must shave his beard, and not simply that he must remove the
hair.
(22) Not using the word shave’.
(23) By becoming defiled; aliter, by becoming a nazirite at all, in accordance with the opinion of R. Eleazar ha-Kappar,
v. supra 19a.

---

(24) He was not responsible for his leprosy, so that the act of purification is purely a religious duty, not an expiation.
Talmud - Mas. Nazir 41a
Talmud - Mas. Nazir 41a
Talmud - Mas. Nazir 41a
Moreover, should you assume that if he uses tweezers or a rohitni he has carried out his religious
duty, then because a razor is not mentioned explicitly [it should be entirely forbidden]
1
 in accordance
with the dictum of Resh Lakish who has said that wherever we find both a positive command and a
prohibition
2
 then, if it is possible to observe both
3
 well and good, otherwise the positive command is
to override the prohibition.
4
 
    And what is R. Eliezer's reason?
5
 — It has been taught: Why does Scripture mention ‘his head’?
6
— Since it says in connection with the nazirite, There shall no razor come upon his head
7
 it might be
thought that this is true even of a nazirite who becomes a leper. We are therefore told that [the leper
must shave] his head.
8
 
    How does it follow?
9
 May it not well be that even if he uses tweezers or a rohitni he has carried
out his religious duty? And should you object that the razor should not have been mentioned,
10
 [the
answer would be that] this tells us that [the leper] may use even a razor; for I might have thought that
because a nazirite who uses a razor
11
 incurs a penalty, so does a leper
12
 who uses a razor incur a
penalty, and so we are told that this is not so?
13
 — If you assume that a leper who uses tweezers or a
rohitni has carried out his religious duty, then because a razor is not mentioned explicitly [in his
case, it should be forbidden entirely], in accordance with the dictum of Resh Lakish.
14
 
    What interpretation do the Rabbis put on [the mention of] ‘his head’?
15
 — They require it to
override the prohibition against rounding [the corners of the head] ‘ as it has been taught: [The verse]
Ye shall not round the corners of your heads
16
 might mean that the same is true of a leper, and we
are therefore told [that he must shave] ‘his head’.
 
    But this
17
 can be deduced from [the mention of] ‘his beard’. For it has been taught: Why does
Scripture mentions his beard? Since it says, Neither shall they shave off the corners of their beards,
18
it might be thought that even [a priest who is] a leper may not do so. And we are therefore told [that
the leper must shave] ‘his beard’. Now why should it be necessary to mention both ‘his head’ and
‘his beard’?
19
 — It is necessary. For had the All-Merciful mentioned ‘his beard’ and not ‘his head’ it
might have been thought that the rounding of the whole head is not considered [as infringing the
prohibition against] rounding,
20
 and so the All-Merciful Law also mentions ‘his head’.
21
____________________
(1) I.e., even if the word ‘shave’ had been used without the additional use of the expression ‘his beard’ we should not
have made the inference that he is allowed to use a razor because of the dictum of Resh Lakish now given.
(2) I.e., a command to do something (e.g., the leper is told to shave his beard) forbidden under certain circumstances.
(3) I.e., carry out the positive command without transgressing the other.
(4) The positive command must be fulfilled at all costs.
(5) I.e., what is his source for the law that a leper must use a razor, since he holds that the prohibition of marring his
beard applies to all instruments, there is no proof that a leper is obliged to use a razor.
(6) Of a leper, seeing it has already said he must shave all his hair. Lev. XIV, 9.
(7) Num. VI, 5.
(8) And we see also that it must be with a razor, since it is this that is explicitly forbidden the nazirite.
(9) That he is obliged to use the razor.
(10) In Num. VI, 5, in connection with the nazirite, seeing that all things are forbidden him.
(11) During his naziriteship.
(12) [Who is also a nazirite.]
(13) But there is still no proof that he must use a razor.
(14) V. supra p. 149.

---