1)

TOSFOS DH Rebbi Omer Eino Tzarich

úåñôåú ã"ä øáé àåîø àéðå öøéê

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains how Rebbi expounds.)

úòø ìàúåéé ìúâìçú àçøåðä ùì ðæéø ãëé ðîé öøéê ìâåôéä àô"ä éãòéðï îîéìà ãúâìçú àçøåðä áúòø

(a)

Explanation: [Rebbi holds that we do not need] "Ta'ar" to teach about the final shaving of a Nazir, for even if we would need it for itself [to forbid shaving with a razor during Nezirus], automatically we would know that the final shaving is with a razor

åáäà ôìéâ àú"÷ ãéãéä ãú"÷ àééúé ìúòø îùåí úâìçú àçøåðä

1.

Rebbi argues with his first Tana as follows. The first Tana brings Ta'ar for the final shaving.

åôøéê åäà ëúéá úòø ìà éòáåø ãîùîò ùàø îòáéøéï ðîé åäéëé ÷àîø øáé ãàúé ìâåôéä ãîùîò ãáúòø ãå÷à îéçééá

2.

We ask that "Ta'ar Lo Ya'avor" connotes also other matters that remove. How can Rebbi say that we need it for the simple meaning, that one is liable only through a razor?

ãñ"ì ìâîøà ãàéï ìðå ìåîø ãøáé éñáåø ëø' éåðúï ãìà àñø ùàø îòáéøéï

(b)

Implied question: Why doesn't the Gemara say that Rebbi holds like R. Yonason, who does not forbid other matters that remove?

ãîã÷àîø àéðå öøéê îùîò ãìà àúé ìàôìåâé òì úðà ÷îà ãéãé' ãîçééá òì ëì îòáéøéï

(c)

Answer: Since he said "it is not needed", this connotes that he does not come to argue with his first Tana who forbids all matters that remove.

åîùðé ìòáåø òìéå áá' ìàåéï ìëê ëúá úòø ãîâìç áúòø òåáø áùðé ìàåéï îùåí úòø åîùåí îòáéøéï

(d)

Explanation (cont.): We answer that it teaches a second Lav. The Torah wrote Ta'ar to teach that one who shaves with a razor transgresses two Lavim - for a razor, and for other matters that remove;

ãäìàå ÷àé àúòø å÷àé ðîé àùàø îòáéøéï åäåé ëàéìå ëúá úòø ìà éòáåø åìà éòáåø (äâää áâìéåï) ãàåúå ìùåï [÷àé] ìôðéå åìàçøéå

1.

The Lav applies to a razor, and also to other matters that remove. It is as if it wrote "Ta'ar Lo Ya'avor v'Lo Ya'avor." The expression ["Lo Ya'avor"] applies to what is before it (Ta'ar) and after it ("Al Rosho");

åäùúà ðô÷é úøåééäå îúòø ìøáé

2.

Now, we learn both of them (Tiglachas Mitzvah and an extra Lav) from Ta'ar according to Rebbi;

ãàé ìà ðëúá úòø àìà ìúâìçú îöåä ëã÷àîø ú"÷ à"ë (äâäú áøëú øàù) ìëúáéä ìúòø áôéøåù âáé úâìçú ùì îöåä ìîàé äéìëúà ëúáå âáé àéñåøà ìåîø [ìê] ùìå÷ä ùúéí

3.

Had the Torah written Ta'ar only for Tiglachas Mitzvah, like the first Tana says, if so, it should have written Ta'ar explicitly regarding Tiglachas Mitzvah. Why was it written regarding Isur? This teaches that he is lashed twice.

åàí ëåìéä ìäëé äåà àúà àîàé ñîéê òã îìàú àì úòø ìà éòáåø àìà øöä ìåîø òã îìàú ìà éòáåø úòø äà ìàçø îìàú ìà éòáéø ùòø øàùå àìà áúòø.

i.

If it came only for this (that he is lashed twice), why was "Ad Melos" written next to "Ta'ar Lo Ya'avor"? Rather, it teaches that until Melos (the end of Nezirus), a razor will not pass. However, after Melos, only a razor will remove his hair.

2)

TOSFOS DH uv'Ta'ar

úåñôåú ã"ä åáúòø

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that this refers to back to the Reisha.)

[åðøàä] (ôé') ã÷àé àøéùà ãàéðå ìå÷ä àìà áúòø

(a)

Explanation: This refers to the Reisha [of Rav Chisda's teaching]. He is lashed only [for shaving] with a razor;

àáì äåà ñåúø ëé ðîé àéðå ëòéï úòø àìà [áøåá] øàùå ñåúø [äéëà] ãìà ùééøå áå ëãé ìëåó àò"â ãìà äåé ëòéï úòø

1.

However, he is Soser even when it is not like a razor. Rather, on the majority of his head he is Soser when he did not leave enough to bend, even though it is not like [one shaved] with a razor.

åôøéê áúòø àéï ãå÷à ìå÷ä áùàø îòáéøéï ìà äà úðï ðæéø ùâéìç áéï áúòø áéï áæåâ áéï áùôùåó ëì ùäåà çééá

2.

We ask "is he is lashed for a razor, but not for other matters that remove? The Mishnah teaches that a Nazir who shaved, whether with a razor, or with scissors, or through rubbing any amount, he is liable!

àìà àéîà ëòéï úòø ùòå÷ø äùòø åîùçéúå îòé÷øå.

i.

[We answer] rather, [he means] like a razor. He uproots the hair and destroys it from its source.

3)

TOSFOS DH Nasha

úåñôåú ã"ä ðùà

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why this needed to be taught explicitly.)

îéï äîùéçä ùîùøú äùòø

(a)

Explanation: This is an ointment that makes hair fall out.

åúéîä ãäà îñéôà ùîòéðï ìä áäãéà ãäà ÷úðé ñéôà åëåìï ùâéìçå ùìà áúòø ìà òùå åìà ëìåí

(b)

Question: We learn this explicitly from the Seifa! The Seifa teaches that if any of them shaved without a razor, he did nothing!

åöøéê ìåîø ãàé îääéà äåä àîéðà îàé ùìà áúòø ùìà ëòéï úòø åàôé' ñê ðùà ðîé.

(c)

Answer: We must say that if we had only the Seifa, one might have thought that "without a razor" means unlike a razor, [however, he is Yotzei any way that removes like a razor], and even if he anointed with Nasha.

40b----------------------------------------40b

4)

TOSFOS DH Ein Korbano b'Dalos

úåñôåú ã"ä àéï ÷øáðå áãìåú

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why we cannot learn from a Tzad ha'Shavah.)

àìà ÷øáï ÷áåò áéï òðééí áéï òùéøéí úàîø áîöåøò ùàí òðé äåà îáéà öôåøéí åàí ëï âí ìà ðçîéø òìéå ìäèòéðå úòø

(a)

Explanation: Rather, his Korban (a Nazir (Tahor), or a Levi) is fixed, whether he is rich or poor. You cannot learn to a Metzora, for if he is poor, he brings birds. If so, we cannot be stringent to obligate him to shave with a razor!

1.

Note: We cannot learn from a Nazir Tamei, who shaves with a razor even though he brings birds, for also his Korban is fixed, whether he is rich or poor.

åàéï ìä÷ùåú ìôé îä ùîñ÷éðï ãéìéó îöåøò î÷øà àçøéðà ùìà áðæéø ãäééðå îæ÷ðå (äâäú áøëú øàù) ãáñîåê ìééúé (ëï äåà áãôåñ åðöéä) ðæéø áîä äöã

(b)

Question: We conclude that we learn Metzora from another verse, and not from Nazir, i.e. from "Zekano", below. We should learn Nazir from a Tzad ha'Shavah [from Leviyim and Metzora. Why did we need to learn from "Ta'ar Lo Ya'avor"?]

ãàéëà ìîéôøê ùëï àéðå áùàìä àå ùëï ùëì âåôå èòåï úâìçú.

(c)

Answer: We could challenge and say that we cannot learn from the Tzad ha'Shavah. The sources cannot be undone through She'elah [like Nezirus can], or that they need to shave the entire body.

5)

TOSFOS DH v'Hai Tana me'Ikara

úåñôåú ã"ä åäàé úðà îòé÷øà

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the question.)

ááøééúà ãìòéì ÷àîø ììîãå îîöåøò àé àôùø ëå' àìîà ã÷éí ìéä ìúðà [úòø] áîöåøò áìà ðæéø ùäøé áà ìîéìó (äâäú áøëú øàù) ðæéø îîöåøò

(a)

Explanation: In the Beraisa above (Sof 39b), [the Tana] said that we cannot learn from Metzora. This implies that he knew that a Ta'ar is needed for a Metzora without [learning from] Nazir, for he comes to learn Nazir from Metzora;

åáäê áøééúà áòé ìîéìó îöåøò ãáòé úòø îãéðà ãðæéø åìåéí àìîà îöåøò âåôéä ìà éìéó àìà îðæéø

1.

[Rava bar Mesharshiya asks that] in this Beraisa, he wants to learn that a Metzora requires a razor from the law of Nazir and Leviyim. This implies that Metzora itself he learns only from Nazir!

i.

Note: On 40a, we cited a Mishnah "three shave...", and the Gemara tried to learn Metzora from Nazir and Leviyim. However, Tosfos (40a DH Tanan, without any Hagahah) says that we cite Toras Kohanim. I.e. "three shave...", and the entire discussion, are one long Beraisa. It is not in our text of Toras Kohanim.

6)

TOSFOS DH v'Hai (part 2)

úåñôåú ã"ä åäàé (çì÷ á)

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that R. Eliezer learns Metzora from Nazir.)

åîãéðà ðîé ìà àééúé

(a)

Citation of Gemara: Also from the Tzad ha'Shavah we cannot learn [Metzora].

[ã÷àîø] îä ìäöã ëå' åñåó ìåîãå îøàùå ãëúéá áðæéø îöåøò (äâäú áøëú øàù)

(b)

Explanation: We say "you cannot learn from the Tzad ha'Shavah..." and in the end, we learn from "Rosho" written regarding a Nazir who is a Metzora.

7)

TOSFOS DH v'Hai (part 3)

úåñôåú ã"ä åäàé (çì÷ â)

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that R. Eliezer learns Metzora from Nazir.)

åäà (äâäú áøëú øàù) øáé àìéòæø

(a)

Citation of Gemara: And this is like R. Eliezer.

ìà éãò úòø áîöåøò àìà îðæéø ëãîôøù åäåìê,

(b)

Explanation: [R. Eliezer] knew a razor for a Metzora only from Nazir, like it proceeds to explain.

8)

TOSFOS DH v'Hai (part 4)

úåñôåú ã"ä åäàé (çì÷ ã)

(SUMMARY: Tosfos brings the argument of R. Eliezer and Rabanan

ãúðï

(a)

Citation of Gemara: A Mishnah teaches.

áôø÷ áúøà ãîëåú (ãó ë.) àéðå çééá ëå' ìâáé ôéàåú ãæ÷ï úðéà ãàéï çééáéï áäùçúú ôàú æ÷ï áéï ëäðéí áéï éùøàìéí òã ùéèìðå áúòø

(b)

Citation (Makos 20a - Mishnah): "One is liable only..." Regarding the corners of the beard, it teaches that one is liable for cutting the corners of the beard, both for Kohanim and Yisre'elim, only with a razor;

åø"à àîø àôé' ìé÷èå áîì÷è åøäéèðé îéçééá.

1.

R. Eliezer said, even if he removed them with Melaket or Rehitani (planing tools; some say, tweezers), he is liable.

9)

TOSFOS DH u'Mai Taimaihu d'Rabanan

úåñôåú ã"ä åîàé èòîééäå ãøáðï

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains Rabanan's source that a Metzora must shave with a razor.)

ëìåîø îäéëà ðô÷à ìï ãôùéèà ìäå ãîöåøò áúòø àôéìå áìà ðæéø ëãñ"ì

(a)

Explanation: What is our source, due to which it is obvious to Rabanan that Metzora requires a razor, even without [learning from] Nazir, like they hold?

ãúðéà æ÷ðå îä ú"ì áîöåøò ëúéá åäéä áéåí äùáéòé éâìç àú ëì ùòøå àú øàùå åàú æ÷ðå åëå' åäìà áëìì ëì ùòøå äåà åìîä ôøè æ÷ðå

1.

The Beraisa asks what we learn from "Zekano". It says "v'Hayah va'Yom ha'Shevi'i Yegalach Es Kol Se'aro Es Rosho v'Es Zekano..." The beard was included in "all his hair." Why was the beard taught by itself?

ìôé ùðà' âáé ëäðéí åôàú æ÷ðí ìà éâìçå éëåì àó îöåøò ëìåîø ëäï åäåà îöåøò ëï ùìà éëåì ìâìç æ÷ðå

2.

[We answer that] regarding Kohanim, it says "u'Fe'as Zekanam Lo Yigalechu." One might have thought that this applies even to a Metzora, i.e. a Kohen Metzora may not shave his beard;

åäà ãëúéá åâìç àú ëì ùòøå

i.

Implied question: (How could we think so?) It says "v'Gilach Es Kol Se'aro"!

ò"ë ìáø îæ÷ðå à"ð áðîøè æ÷ðå ùàéï òùä ãâéìåç ãåçä ìàå ãäùçúú æ÷ï äëäðéí åòùä ã÷ãåùéí ãëäðéí

ii.

Answer: You are forced to say [that this means all his hair] except for his beard, or if [the hairs of] his beard fell out, because the Aseh of shaving is not Docheh the Lav of cutting a Kohen's beard, and the Aseh of "Kedoshim [Yihyu]" of Kohanim (to guard the Mitzvos of Kohanim).

ú"ì æ÷ðå îéåúø ùðëúá áîöåøò ìàùîåòéðï òùä ãæ÷ðå ãçé ìàå ãìà éâìçå áëäðéí åòùä ã÷ãåùéí éäéå

3.

[Therefore,] it says "Zekano", which is extra. It is written regarding a Metzora, to teach that the Aseh of Zekano is Docheh the Lav "Lo Yegalechu" of Kohanim and the Aseh "Kedoshim Yihyu."

åàò"ô ùàéï òùä ãåçä ìà úòùä åòùä áòìîà

(b)

Question: Normally, an Aseh is not Docheh a Lav and an Aseh!

äëà ãçé ëãàîø áøéù éáîåú (ãó ä.) ãäàé ìàå åòùä ùàéðå ùåä [áëì] äåà ãäùçúú æ÷ï àéðå áðùéí ëãàîø ôø÷ ÷îà ã÷ãåùéï (ãó ìä:)

(c)

Answer: Here it is Docheh, like it says in Yevamos (5a), because this Lav and Aseh are not Shavah b'Chol (do not apply to everyone). There is no Isur for women to cut the beard [of a man, or of a woman, if she would grow hairs there], like it says in Kidushin (35b).

åà"ú åãìîà àúé ìîéùøé ìàå âøéãà ãìà úùçéú ôàú æ÷ðê

(d)

Question: Perhaps [Zekano] comes to permit only the Lav [regarding Yisre'elim] "Lo Sashchis Pe'as Zekanecha"!

åé"ì ãîéñúáøà ãàéëà ìîéîø ÷øà ñúîà ëúéá áéï áéùøàì áéï áëäðéí (äâäú îäø"á øðùáåøâ)

(e)

Answer #1: Presumably, we should say that the verse was written Stam, [to teach about] both Yisre'elim and Kohanim.

åòé"ì åäåà äòé÷ø ãò"ë ìøáðï ììàå âøéãà ãéùøàì ìà àéöèøéê ÷øà ãðô÷à ìäå îøàùå (äâäú äøù"ù) ÷îà ããçé òùä ãîöåøò ìàå ãä÷ôä

(f)

Answer #2: This answer is primary. You are forced to say that according to Rabanan, we do not need a verse for the mere Lav regarding Yisre'elim. They learn from Rosho [written in the verse before Zekano] that the Aseh of [shaving a] Metzora overrides the Lav of Hakafah (cutting the sideburns);

ãñáéøà ìäå ãä÷ôú ëì äøàù ùîä ä÷ôä ëãàéúà áñîåê

1.

They hold that the Hakafah of the entire head (which includes the sideburns) is called Hakafah, like it says below;

à"ë æ÷ðå ìà àéöèøéê ÷øà àìà ìëäðéí åìàùîåòéðï ãòùä ãîöåøò ãçé ìàå åòùä ãäùçúú æ÷ï äëäðéí (âøéãà)

i.

If so, we [do not] need Zekano [to permit only the Lav of Yisre'elim, rather,] only for Kohanim, to teach that the Aseh of Metzora overrides the Lav and Aseh of shaving for Kohanim.

åîãàúà ÷øà ãæ÷ðå ìîéùøé ìå ìàå ãäùçúú æ÷ï åäùçúú æ÷ï ìà îçééá àìà áúòø îëìì ãîöåøò úâìçúå àéðå àìà áúòø

(g)

Conclusion: Since the verse Zekano comes to permit for him the Lav of shaving, and one is liable for the Lav of shaving only with a razor, this implies that shaving a Metzora must be with a razor;

ãàí ìà ëï æ÷ðå ìîä ìé.

1.

If not, what would Zekano teach?! (Since he may shave without a razor, there is no Heter to shave with a razor, like we say below.)

10)

TOSFOS DH Ha Keitzad...

úåñôåú ã"ä äà ëéöã...

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the question against this answer.)

åäàé ùøà øçîðà áîöåøò ëäï åá÷éãåùéï (äâäú áøëú øàù) âîøéðï ôàä ôàä ëäðéí îéùøàìéí,

(a)

Explanation: [Shaving that totally cuts is with a razor,] and the Torah permitted a Metzora Kohen, and in Kidushin (35b) we learn a Gezeirah Shavah "Pe'ah-Pe'ah" Kohanim from Yisre'elim [and vice-versa];

åôøéê îîàé ãúâìçú îöåøò ìéëà àìà áúòø

1.

[Our Gemara] asks "what is the source that Tiglachas Metzora is only through a razor?

ãéìîà àôé' áîì÷è åøäéèðé ÷ééí äîöåøò îöåú âéìåç å÷øà ãæ÷ðå àúà ìàùîåòéðï ãàí áà ìâìç [áúòø] äøùåú áéãå

i.

Perhaps even through Melaket or Rehitani, a Metzora fulfills the Mitzvah of shaving, and Zekano comes to teach that if he wants to slave with a razor, he may!

ùäåà [îåæäø] òìéå áòìîà áôàä ãæ÷ï äëà ùøé åìà îéçééá.

ii.

Normally, he is forbidden [to shave] the corners of his beard. Here it is permitted, and he is not liable!

11)

TOSFOS DH Ha (part 2)

úåñôåú ã"ä äà (çì÷ á)

(SUMMARY: Tosfos justifies the proof that he must shave with a razor.)

åîùðé àîøé

(a)

Citation of Gemara: The Gemara answers "I can say..."

ëìåîø [òì ëøçê] æ÷ðå ãëúéá áà (äâäú îäø"á øðùáåøâ) ãæ÷å÷ ìâìç åìòùåú áúòø åìà áãáø àçø

(b)

Explanation: You are forced to say that Zekano was written to teach that he must shave with a razor, and not with something else;

ãàé ñ"ã ëé òáéã ðîé áîì÷è åøäéèðé ùôéø ãîé ìùúå÷ ÷øà îéðéä

1.

If you will say that if he shaved with Melaket or Rehitani, it is fine, the Torah should have omitted [Zekano]!

ãàí áà [ìîéîø] ùäøùåú áéãå ìâìç áúòø ôàú æ÷ðå

2.

Implied question: Perhaps it comes to teach that he may shave the corners of his beard with a razor!

ìäà ìà áòé ÷øà ãæ÷ðå ãøùåú éãòéðï î÷"å,

3.

Answer: We do not need "Zekano" for this. We know that it is permitted from a Kal va'Chomer [that the Gemara brings now]!

12)

TOSFOS DH Ha (part 3)

úåñôåú ã"ä äà (çì÷ â)

(SUMMARY: Tosfos concludes that this answer is not primary.)

ä"â åîä ðæéø ëå'

(a)

Citation of Gemara: The text says "a Nazir..."

äåä îöé ìîôøê ãëäï îöåøò ìà àúé ùëï øéáä äëúåá [áäï] îöåú éúéøåú åëä"â ôøéê áëì ãåëúé åìëê ìà ìéãçé òùä ãîöåøò ìàå ãëäðéí

(b)

Implied question #1: We could have asked that we cannot learn to a Kohen Metzora, for the Torah gave extra Mitzvos to Kohanim! (Perhaps it is harder to override a Kohen's extra Mitzvos than a Yisrael's Mitzvos.) The Gemara asks like this everywhere. Therefore, the Aseh of Metzora is not Docheh the Lav of Kohanim.

åòåã îä ìðæéø ùëï ìàå âøéãà ããçé ìàå ãä÷ôä úàîø áëäðéí ãàéëà ìàå åòùä ìàå ãäùçúú æ÷ï åòùä ã÷ãåùéí (äâäú ø' áöìàì àùëðæé)

(c)

Implied question #2: Also [we could have asked that Mitzvas Tiglachas] Nazir overrides only a mere Lav of Hakafah. We cannot learn to Kohanim, for whom there is a Lav and an Aseh - the Lav of shaving the beard, and the Aseh of Kedoshim [Yihyu]!

ìë"ð ãòé÷ø àôéøëà àçøåðä ñîéê ãôøéê îøùá"ì,

(d)

Answer: Primarily, [the Gemara's answer] relies on the latter challenge from Reish Lakish's teaching.

13)

TOSFOS DH Ha (part 3)

úåñôåú ã"ä äà (çì÷ ã)

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the source of the Kal va'Chomer.)

ä"â åîä ðæéø ãàéñåøà ÷òáéã,

(a)

Citation of Gemara: The text says "a Nazir did an Isur..."

åàôéìå ðæéø èäåø çåèà ÷öú ëãàéúà ô"÷ ãðãøéí (ãó é.) åìòéì áô' ùìéùé (ãó éè.)

(b)

Explanation #1: Even a Nazir Tahor sins a little, like it says in Nedarim (10a) and above (19a).

åòåã ãîðæéø èîà ÷à éìéó ùâí äåà úâìçúå (äâäú ø' áöìàì àùëðæé åáøëú øàù) áúòø ëãîùîò áñîåê ãâîøéðï èäåø îèîà åèîà îèäåø

(c)

Explanation #2: We learn from a Nazir Tamei. Also his shaving it is with a razor, like it connotes below that we learn Tahor from Tamei and Tamei from Tahor;

åàô"ä úâìçú îöåä ãéãéä ãçé ìàå ãä÷ôä ãñáéøà ìéä ãä÷ôú ëì äøàù ùîä ä÷ôä åàô"ä (äâäú úôàøú öéåï) îéçééá

1.

Even so, his Mitzvah of shaving overrides the Lav of Hakafah. He holds that Hakafah of the entire head is called Hakafah, like it says below, and even so, he is obligated;

ôé' îéçééá ìâìç ëì øàùå åìãçåú ìàå ãä÷ôä (ëï äåà áãôåñ åðöéä)

2.

I.e. even so he is obligated to shave his entire head and override the Lav of Hakafah.

14)

TOSFOS DH Metzora d'Mitzvah Lo Kol she'Chen

úåñôåú ã"ä îöåøò ãîöåä ìà ëì ùëï (äâäú áøëú øàù)

(SUMMARY: Tosfos resolves this with the Gemara above.)

ãîöåú úâìçú ìà (äâäú áøëú øàù) áàä ìå ò"é ùåí àéñåø ìë"ù ùúâìçúå ãîöåä úãçä ìàå ãäùçúä

(a)

Explanation: [A Metzora's] Mitzvah of shaving did not come through any Isur. All the more so, his Mitzvah to shave overrides the Lav of shaving!

1.

Note: Even though Chachamim explained that Tzara'as comes due to certain Aveiros, we may make a Kal va'Chomer based on what is written. The laws of Tzara'as were written about anyone with Tzara'as, whether or not he sinned.

åàé ÷ùä îä ìðæéø ùëï ÷øáðå èòåï ìçí ëãô"ì

(b)

Question: How can we learn from a Nazir? His Korban requires bread, like [the Gemara] asked above!

åé"ì ãìà ãîé ãåãàé ìòéì ãáòéðï ìäèòéï úòø ìîöåøò åìà ùàø îùçéúéí ôøéê ùôéø

(c)

Answer: Here is different. Surely, above, we needed to obligate a razor for a Metzora, and not other matters that remove hair. We properly challenged this;

ãî"ä áðæéø ãéï äåà ùéäà èòåï úòø ìúâìçúå ùëîå ëï çåîøà àçøú áå ù÷øáðå èòåï ìçí

1.

For a Nazir, it is proper that he needs a razor to shave, for we find another stringency in him. His Korban requires bread;

àáì äëà ãìà áòéðï ìîéìó ìäèòéï úòø áîöåøò îúâìçú ãðæéø ø÷ ùäøùåú éäéä áéãå ìäòáéøå áúòø ëîå áùàø îùçéúéï åìà ùééëà ëìì ääéà ôéøëà ãìà áòéðï ìîéìó çåîøà îðæéø

2.

However, here we do not want to learn to obligate a razor for a Metzora from Tiglachas Nazir, only that it is permitted to remove with a razor, like other matters that remove. This challenge does not apply at all, for we do not seek to learn a stringency from Nazir.

àìà îëì î÷åí úéîä äåà åäà äê ñåâéà ìøáðï [åäøé] îåëç ãìøáðï ôùéèà ìäå úòø îúâìçú ãîöåøò î÷îé ãéãòéðï ìéä áðæéø

(d)

Question: However, in any case, this is astounding. This Sugya is according to Rabanan. It is proven that according to Rabanan, they knew that Tiglachas Metzora requires a razor before they knew regarding Nazir!

ã÷àîø ááøééúà ãìòéì ììîãå îîöåøò àé àôùø ëå' àìîà áîöåøò ôùéèà ìäå (îëàï îãó äáà) ìøáðï ãèòåï úòø ìúâìçúå

1.

The Beraisa above (39b) said "we cannot learn [Nazir] from Metzora... This shows that it was obvious to Rabanan that a Metzora requires a razor for his Tiglachas;