Previous Daf

NAZIR 58

Ask A Question

click for question
1)
(a) One Beraisa learns from the Pasuk "Rosho" that the Mitzvah of shaving pertaining to a Metzora overrides the Lav of "Lo Sakifu Pe'as Roshchem". We initially interpret the Chidush of the Beraisa as being - 'Hakafas Kol ha'Rosh Shmah Hakafah' (otherwise, the Tana would not be teaching us anything).
(b) The Tana of a second Beraisa correlates "Rosho" with the Pasuk written in connection with a Nazir "Ta'ar Lo Yavo al Rosho" - to teach us that the Mitzvah of shaving a Metzora even overrides the Lav and the Aseh of Nazir.
(c) According to this explanation, this Tana disagrees with the first Tana - inasmuch as he holds 'Hakafas Kol ha'Rosh Lo Shmah Hakafah (in which case we do not require "Rosho" for a Metzora alone).

click for question
2)
(a) Rava attempts to establish that both Beraisos hold 'Hakafas Kol ha'Rosh Lo Shmah Hakafah - and the Chidush of the first Beraisa is that the Metzora is not obligated to shave the entire head in one sitting, but may even first shave off the Pe'os and then the rest of the head.
(b) We refute Rava's explanation however, on the basis of a principle stated by Reish Lakish - that when a Lav and an Aseh clash, if one is able to fulfill the Aseh without transgressing the Lav, then he is obligated to do so (and it is only when he has no alternative that the Aseh overrides the Lo Sa'aseh).
(c) We conclude that both Tana'im hold 'Hakafas Kol ha'Rosh Shmah Hakafah', and the Tana of the first Beraisa is coming to teach us that 'Aseh Docheh Lo Sa'aseh' - whereas 'Hakafas Kol ha'Rosh Shmah Hakafah' we know from a Sevara.
(d) And the Tana of the second Beraisa learns that 'Aseh Docheh Lo Sa'aseh' - from the juxtaposition of "Lo Silbash Sha'atnez" to "Gedilim Ta'aseh Lach" (Ki Setzei), from which we learn that the Mitzvah of Tzitzis overrides the Lav of Sha'atnez.

click for question
3)
(a) The Tana of the first Beraisa learns from " ... Tzemer u'Fishtim Yachdav ... Gedilim Ta'aseh Lach" - that although Tzitzis must consist of the same material as the garment for which it is made, that applies to any material other than wool or linen, which may be used to make Tzitzis for any type of garment (as Rava teaches us).
(b) Rava learns from the Pasuk " ... al Tzitzis ha'Kanaf" - "ha'Kanaf", 'Min ha'Kanaf' (that wool and linen Tzitzis apart, as we just explained, the Tzitzis must consist of the same material as the garment for which they are made).
(c) We ask from where the first Tana (who learns from "Rosho" that 'Aseh Docheh Lo Sa'aseh') learns that 'Aseh Docheh Lo Sa'aseh v'Aseh (she'Eino Shaveh ba'Kol)'. What forces us to say that he does is - that otherwise, how would he know the principle 'Aseh Docheh Lo Sa'aseh' (seeing as he does not learn it from Kilayim b'Tzitzis, as we just explained). At first glance, he cannot learn it from "Rosho" of Metzora (the current Derashah), which is a Lav she'Eino Shaveh ba'Kol' (and from which one can therefore only learn that 'Aseh Docheh Lo Sa'aseh she'Eino Shaveh ba'Kol'). Consequently we are forced to say that he knows that already from the fact that 'Aseh Docheh Lo Sa'aseh v'Aseh' she'Eino Shaveh ba'Kol' (for which we are now seeking the source), in which case "Rosho" can be used ('Im Eino Inyan') to teach us 'Aseh Docheh Lo Sa'aseh'.

click for question
4)
(a) In fact, the Tana of the first Beraisa learns 'Aseh Docheh Lo Sa'aseh v'Aseh she'Eino Shaveh ba'Kol' from the Pasuk "v'Gilach Es Kol Se'aro ... v'es Zekano" (written in connection with Metzora) - which overrides the Aseh of "Kedoshim Yiheyu and the Lo Sa'aseh of "u'Pe'as Zekanam Lo Yegalechu" (both written in Emor in connection with Kohanim).
(b) According to our supposition that the Lav of "u'Pe'as Zekanam Lo Yegalechu" overrides the Aseh of "Yegalach Es Kol Se'aro" (of a Metzora), the only way of fulfilling the Aseh is - if and when the Pe'os have fallen out by themselves.

click for question
5)
(a) We have a principle 'Ein Aseh Docheh Lo Sa'aseh v'Aseh'. We cannot learn from here that it is - because we are speaking specifically about a 'Lav she'Eino Shaveh ba'Kol', whilst the principle pertains specifically to a 'Lav ha'Shaveh ba'Kol'.
(b) The Tana who learns from "Zekano" that 'Aseh Docheh Lo Sa'aseh v'Aseh she'Eino Shaveh ba'Kol', nevertheless requires "Rosho" to teach us that the Aseh of Metzora also overrides the Aseh and the Lo Sa'aseh of Nazir. We cannot learn the latter from the former - because Nazir is a 'Lav and an Aseh ha'Shaveh ba'Kol' (and, as we just explained, we cannot learn it from a Lav and an Aseh which are 'Eino Shaveh ba'Kol').
(c) And the Tana who learns from "Rosho" that the Aseh of Metzora also overrides the Aseh and the Lo Sa'aseh of Nazir - nevertheless requires the Pasuk of "Zekano" - to teach us that just as the prohibition of shaving one's beard is confined to a razor, so too, is the Mitzvah of shaving a Metzora.
(d) We learn from the two Pesukim "Lo Yegalechu" and "v'Lo Sashchis" (both written with regard to shaving the five corners of one's beard) - that one is only Chayav for shaving the beard in a way that constitutes both shaving and destruction (i.e. a razor) to preclude a pair of scissors (which is not considered shaving) and tweezers and a plane (which is not considered shaving).

click for question
6)
(a) We might have answered the previous Kashya by establishing the Tana of 'Zekano' like the Tana of the first Beraisa, who learns from "Rosho" that 'Aseh Docheh Lo Sa'aseh'. We might also have refuted the Kashya (that we should learn 'Kohen' from 'Nazir') on the grounds that the Lav of Nazir has the weakness - that it can be revoked (which that of Kohen does not).
(b) From the Pasuk of "Zekano" we could learn that a. the 'Aseh' of shaving a Metzora overrides the Lav and the Aseh of Kohanim cutting their beards (which are 'Eino Shaveh ba'Kol') and b. that it overrides the Lav of Yisre'elim cutting their beards (which is a Lav ha'Shaveh ba'Kol).
(c) 'Shekulin Hen v'Yavo'u Sheneihen' means - that since we have a choice of learning one of two things from a Pasuk, and we have no reason to learn one more than the other, we learn both.
(d) We are trying to prove from this principle that the Pasuk "Rosho" is not necessary (to teach us 'Aseh Docheh Lo Sa'aseh, since we can learn it from "Zekano".

click for question
7)
(a) We prefer to learn that an Aseh overrides both a Lav and a Lav and an Aseh from "Zekano", rather than from "Rosho" (from which we could also learn both, as we saw at the beginning of the Sugya) - because the Lav (of "v'Lo Sashchis") pertaining to Kohanim is the same as that pertaining to Yisre'elim, whereas the Lav of Hakafah ("Lo Sakifu") and that of Nazir ("Ta'ar Lo Ya'avor al Rosho") are two separate Lavin.
(b) By the same token, it is clear that "Rosho" incorporates a Stam Metzora (to teach us that 'Aseh Docheh Lo Sa'aseh, even when it Shaveh ba'Kol, as we explained earlier) and a Metzora who is a Nazir (to teach us 'Aseh Docheh Lav v'Aseh she'Eino Shaveh ba'Kol) as we extrapolate from the insertion of Nazir in our Sugya. Nevertheless, we cannot learn ...
1. ... Kohen from Nazir ("Rosho") - because the latter Lav can be revoked by a Chacham, whereas the former cannot.
2. ... Nazir from Kohen - because the latter Lav (that of cutting the beard) is not Shaveh ba'Kol (i.e. since it does not pertain to women), whether the former is.
3. ... Aseh Docheh Lo Sa'aseh va'Aseh from either of these two - because both Lavin have a weakness, as we just explained.
(c) Nor can we even learn all other cases from a 'Mah ha'Tzad' (a combination of the two) - because the Aseh of Metzora (which overrides them) is different than other Asehs, inasmuch as it leads to Shalom Bayis, which other Asehs do not.

click for question
8)
(a) When Rav permits shaving his body-hair with a razor, he is referring to the Lav of "Lo Yilbash Gever Simlas Ishah".
(b) To reconcile Rav with the Tana of a Beraisa (who prohibits the removal of the underarm hair and that of the Beis ha'Ervah, we differentiate between shaving it with a razor (which is forbidden) and with scissors (which is permitted). And when he referred to a 'razor' - what he really meant was shaving it with scissors that remove the hair completely (like a razor).
(c) According to the Ba'al Halachos Gedolos and the Rif, we differentiate between underarm hair and that of the Beis ha'Ervah on the one hand, and other body-hair, on the other. To reconcile Rav with the Beraisa, which forbids even other body-hair - we establish his statement by scissors, whereas the Beraisa is speaking by a razor.

click for question
9)
(a) On the following Amud, we will cite two versions of this text. According to one way of reading it, after differentiating between the underarm hair and that of the Beis ha'Ervah and other body-hair, and asking from the Beraisa which presents shaving (unspecified) body-hair as being d'Rabanan, we conclude 'Ela Ki Ka'amar Rav b'Misparayim', v'Chi Tanya ha'Hi, b'Ta'ar'. The significance of the word 'Ela" is - that it implies that he is referring to underarm hair and that of the Beis ha'Ervah, to permit shaving all body-hair with scissors.
(b) Without 'Ela', it would imply that the concession of using scissors is confined to other body-hair, but not to underarm hair and that of the Beis ha'Ervah (though it is possible that 'Ela' is implied even if it is not written).

click for question
10)
(a) Rebbi Chiya bar Aba Amar Rebbi Yochanan sentences anyone who shaves the underarm hair or that of the Beis ha'Ervah to Malkus. There is no discrepancy between Rebbi Yochanan and the Tana of a Beraisa, which states that he only receives Malkus d'Rabanan - because Rebbi Yochanan too, is referring to Malkus d'Rabanan.
(b) Rebbi Yochanan disagrees with Rav - inasmuch as he prohibits using even scissors (whereas Rav does not, according to our text, as we just learned).

Next Daf