Talmud Nazir (E)

it might be thought that the same is true of a leper, therefore Scripture says ‘his head’.
1
 And another
[Baraitha] taught: Why does Scripture mention ‘his head’?) Since it says with reference to the
nazirite, There shall no razor come upon his head,
2
 it might be thought that the same is true of a
nazirite who becomes a leper, therefore Scripture says ‘his head’.
3
 Now surely there is here a
difference of opinion between Tannaim [on the question of rounding the whole head]. The [Tanna]
who refers [‘his head’] to the nazirite holding that the rounding of the whole head does not count as
rounding,
4
 and that the purpose of the text
5
 is to override the prohibition and positive command
[incumbent on the nazirite],
6
 whilst the other [Tanna] holds that the rounding of the whole head does
count as rounding
7
 and the purpose of the verse is to override a simple prohibition!
8
 — Said Raba:
[It may be that] both [Tannaim] agree that the rounding of the whole head does not count as
rounding, and the purpose of the verse [according to the latter Tanna]
9
 is [to permit rounding] where
he first rounds [the corners only] and then shaves [the rest of the head]. Since he would not be guilty
if he shaved it all at the same time, he is not guilty if he first rounds [the corners] and then shaves
[the rest].
10
 
    But could Scripture possibly intend this?
11
 Has not Resh Lakish said that wherever we find a
positive command and a prohibition [at variance], then if it is possible to observe both, well and
good, otherwise the positive command overrides the prohibition?
12
 — We must therefore say that
both [Tannaim] agree that the rounding of the whole head counts as rounding [the corners], and that
the authority who utilises the verse [‘his head’ to prove that a positive command] may override both
a prohibition and a positive command, infers that a simple prohibition [can be overridden] from [the
command to wear] twisted cords. For the verse says, Thou shalt not wear a mingled stuff,
13
 and it
has been taught [in explanation of this]: Thou shalt not wear a mingled stuff, [wool and linen
together], but nevertheless, Thou shalt make thee twisted cords
14
 of them.
 
    Why does not the one who infers this [rule]
15
 from ‘his head’ infer it from ‘twisted cords’? — He
will reply that [the latter] is required for [the following dictum of] Raba. For Raba noted the
following contradiction. It is written, And that they put with the fringe of each corner, [i.e.,] of the
same [material] as the corner
16
 must there be a thread of blue.
17
 Yet it is [also] written wool and
linen together.
18
 How are these to be reconciled? Wool and linen discharge [the obligation to provide
fringes] both for [garments of] their own species,
19
 and also for other species,
20
 but other kinds [of
material] discharge [this obligation] only for [garments of] the same species but not for [garments of]
a different species.
21
 
    And whence does the Tanna who utilizes ‘his head’ for [the inference that a positive command
overrides] a simple prohibition learn that the positive command
22
 overrides both a prohibition and a
positive command?
23
 — He infers it from [the expression] ‘his beard’.
24
 For it has been taught: Why
does Scripture mention ‘his beard’?
25
 Since it says,
26
 neither shall they shave off the corners of their
beard,
27
 it might be thought that the same is true of a priest who is a leper, and so Scripture says ‘his
beard’.
28
 
    Why does not the [Tanna] who utilizes ‘his head’ for [teaching that] the positive command and
prohibition [can be overruled by a positive command] infer it from [the words] ‘his beard’? — But
according to your view
29
 when we have the rule elsewhere
____________________
(1) The leper must even shave his head.
(2) Num. VI, 5.
(3)  Even a nazirite must shave his head if he becomes a leper. Cf. the somewhat different discussion of these two
Baraithas, supra 41a.
(4) And so no special permission is required to round the head of a leper on shaving him.
(5) ‘His head’.
(6) Viz.: There shall no razor come upon his head (Num. VI. 5) and, He shall let the locks of the hair of his head grow

---

long (Ibid.). In spite of these verses, the leprous nazirite is to shave his head.
(7) And it might be thought that even an ordinary leper must not round his head.
(8) I.e., one which has no accompanying positive command to the same effect.
(9) Who uses it to allow rounding in the case of an ordinary Ieper.
(10) I.e., the verse tells us that even if he shaves his head without avoiding the transgression of the prohibition against
rounding, where is no penalty.
(11) Viz.: no permit infringement of a prohibition when it can he avoided.
(12) And here, if rounding the whole head is not an infringement, he should shave the whole head at once.
(13) Deut. XXII, 21.
(14)  The next verse. The inference is that fringes of wool may be placed on a linen garment, the prohibition of the
preceding verse notwithstanding.
(15) That a positive command overrides a simple prohibition.
(16) This is inferred from the redundant ‘each corner’. Since we know from the preceding phrase that the fringes are to
he on the corners, Raba concludes that the fringes must he of the same material as the garment.
(17) Num. XV, 38.
(18) Deut. XXII, 21, followed by Thou shalt make thee twisted cords, implying apparently that fringes must be made of
wool and linen only.
(19) Wool and linen.
(20) Wool fringes may be put on a silk or linen garment.
(21) Silk fringes do nor count as fringes if put on a woollen garment.
(22) In the case of the leper.
(23) If the nazirite becomes leprous he may shave his head on recovering.
(24) Lev. XIV, 9 of a leper.
(25) Since he must shave the whole of his body.
(26) Of the priests.
(27) Lev. XXI, 5. This is the prohibition. The positive command is contained in the next verse. They shall be holy unto
their God.
(28) Even a priest must shave his beard if he is a leper.
(29) That we make the inference from ‘his beard’, so that the case of the leprous nazirite can be deduced from that of the
leprous priest.
Talmud - Mas. Nazir 58b
Talmud - Mas. Nazir 58b
Talmud - Mas. Nazir 58b
that a positive command cannot override a prohibition accompanied by a positive command, let it be
inferred from the [case of a leprous] priest that it can override?
1
 [To this you reply] that we can make
no inference from the [case of a leprous priest], [because] the case of the priest is different since the
prohibition [overridden] does not apply to all people equally.
2
 So, too, we are unable to infer the
nazirite [leper] from the priest [leper] since the prohi bition [overridden in the case of the priest] does
not apply equally to all people.
3
 
    Now to what use does the [Tanna] who utilizes [the phrase] ‘his head’ for the nazirite [leper], put
[the phrase] ‘his beard’?
4
 — He requires it for [the following] that has been taught:
5
 [From the verse]
Neither shall they shave off the corners of their beard,
6
 it might be thought that even if he shaved it
with a scissors, he would be guilty, and so Scripture says [elsewhere], neither shalt thou mar [the
corners of thy beard].
7
 If it had [only written] ‘neither shalt thou mar’ It might have been thought
that if he plucked it out with tweezers or a rohitni,
8
 he would be guilty, and so Scripture says,
‘neither shalt they shave off the corners of their beard’. What sort of shaving also mars? I should say
that this is [shaving with] a razor.
9
 Now according to the other tanna who utilizes the phrase, ‘his
head’ for [overriding] a simple prohibition, why is it necessary to write both ‘his head’ and ‘his
beard’? [For since the expression ‘his head’] can be understood as implying the overriding of a
simple prohibition
10
 and it can be understood also as implying the overriding of a prohibition
accompanied by a positive command,
11
 it can be applied indifferently to both,
12
 and both could be

---