## Nazir Daf 40b

###### Nazir 40b:1
[Nazir 40b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/40b:1)

אֵין קׇרְבָּנוֹ בְּדַלּוּת. תֹּאמַר בִּמְצוֹרָע שֶׁקׇּרְבָּנוֹ בְּדַלּוּת!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
the **offering** in each case does not include a level **of poverty.** In both cases the offering is fixed, i.e., a poor person does not have the option of bringing a less expensive offering due to his financial straits. Will **you say** the same **with regard to the leper, whose offering** includes a level **of poverty,** as a poor person can bring turtledoves instead of sheep (Leviticus 14:21–22)? Since the Torah was more lenient in the case of a leper than the cases of a nazirite and the Levites, it could also be that the *halakha* is also lenient with regard to his shaving, by not demanding the use of a razor. Consequently, there is no proof that a leper is obligated to shave with a razor.


###### Nazir 40b:2
[Nazir 40b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/40b:2)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא בַּר מְשַׁרְשְׁיָא לְרָבָא: הַאי תַּנָּא, מֵעִיקָּרָא אָמַר: לְלׇמְדוֹ מִמְּצוֹרָע אִי אֶפְשָׁר, שֶׁאֵין דָּנִין קַל מֵחָמוּר לְהַחְמִיר עָלָיו. וַהֲדַר אָמַר: נֵילַף מִדִּינָא, וּמִדִּינָא נָמֵי לָא יָלֵיף?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
In continuation of this discussion, **Rava bar Mesharshiyya said to Rava: This *tanna* initially said,** with regard to the obligation of a nazirite to shave with a razor (39b): **It is impossible to learn** this requirement **from** the *halakha* that **a leper** must use a razor, **as one does not derive** a *halakha* in **a lenient** case **from** the *halakha* in a more **stringent** one in a manner that would cause one **to be stringent** in the more lenient case. This indicates that it is obvious to the *tanna* that a leper himself must shave with a razor. **And he then said: Let us derive** by means **of an inference** that a leper must use a razor, **and** ultimately **he did not derive** it **from an inference** by analogy **either,** due to Rava of Barnish’s objection. What, then, is the source for the *halakha* that a leper must use a razor?


###### Nazir 40b:3
[Nazir 40b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/40b:3)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הָהוּא — אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבָּנַן. הָא — אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר. דִּתְנַן: וְאֵינוֹ חַיָּיב עַד שֶׁיְּלַקְּטֶנּוּ בְּתַעַר. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: אֲפִילּוּ לִיקְּטוֹ בְּמַלְקֵט וּבְרָהִיטְנֵי — חַיָּיב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rava **said to** Rava bar Mesharshiyya: **That** *baraita*, which states that one cannot derive the *halakha* from the case of a leper, which indicates that it is evident that a leper must shave with a razor, is **in accordance with** the opinion of **the Rabbis.** They derive the *halakha* of a leper’s shaving from the prohibition against destroying one’s beard. Conversely, **this** source, which attempted to derive the shaving of a leper from that of a nazirite and the Levites, is **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Eliezer,** who does not derive the *halakha* of a leper’s shaving from the prohibition against destroying one’s beard. Rabbi Eliezer must therefore derive this *halakha* by analogy from the cases of a nazirite and the Levites. This is **as we learned** in a mishna (*Makkot* 20a): **And** one is **liable** for destroying his beard **only if he removes it with a razor. Rabbi Eliezer says: Even** if **he removed it with** small **tweezers or a plane [*rehitni*] he is liable.** Rabbi Eliezer maintains that one violates the prohibition even by destroying his beard with means other than a razor.


###### Nazir 40b:4
[Nazir 40b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/40b:4)

מַאי טַעְמַיְיהוּ דְּרַבָּנַן? דְּתַנְיָא: ״זְקָנוֹ״ מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר? לְפִי שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״וּפְאַת זְקָנָם לֹא יְגַלֵּחוּ״, יָכוֹל אֲפִילּוּ מְצוֹרָע כֵּן — תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״זְקָנוֹ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What is the reason of the Rabbis;** how do they derive from this *halakha* that a leper must shave with a razor? **As it is taught** in a *baraita* that the verse states with regard to the shaving of a leper: “He shall shave all his hair off his head and his beard” (Leviticus 14:9). Since the verse states: “All his hair,” **what** is the meaning when **the verse states: “His beard”?** It is **because it is stated** with regard to priests: **“Neither shall they shave off the corners of their beards”** (Leviticus 21:5). One **might** have thought that **the same** should **also** apply to **a leper,** i.e. that a leper who was a priest should be prohibited from shaving his beard. For this reason **the verse states: “His beard,”** which emphasizes that despite the general prohibition barring a priest from shaving his beard, a priest who is a leper is obligated to do so.


###### Nazir 40b:5
[Nazir 40b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/40b:5)

וּמְנָלַן דִּבְתַעַר? דְּתַנְיָא: ״וּפְאַת זְקָנָם לֹא יְגַלֵּחוּ״, יָכוֹל אֲפִילּוּ גִּילְּחוֹ בְּמִסְפָּרַיִם יְהֵא חַיָּיב, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְלֹא תַשְׁחִית״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And from where do we** derive **that** this shaving of a leper must be performed **with a razor?** It is **as it is taught** in a *baraita*, with regard to the prohibition against a priest shaving his beard in the verse **“Neither shall they shave off the corners of their beards”** (Leviticus 21:5): One **might** have thought that a priest should **be liable even if he shaved** his beard **with scissors. The verse states,** in the general prohibition issued to all Jewish men: **“Neither shall you destroy** the corners of your beard” (Leviticus 19:27). This teaches that one is liable only if he shaves in a destructive manner, by uprooting the hairs entirely, which excludes the use of scissors.


###### Nazir 40b:6
[Nazir 40b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/40b:6)

יָכוֹל לִיקְּטוֹ בְּמַלְקֵט וּבְרָהִיטְנֵי יְהֵא חַיָּיב, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וּפְאַת זְקָנָם לֹא יְגַלֵּחוּ״. הָא כֵּיצַד? אֵיזֶהוּ גִּילּוּחַ שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ הַשְׁחָתָה — הֱוֵי אוֹמֵר: זֶה תַּעַר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
One **might** have thought that **even** if **he removed it with tweezers or planes he** should **be liable. The verse states: “Neither shall they shave off the corners of their beards”** (Leviticus 21:5), which indicates that the priests are liable only for removing their beards in a manner of shaving. **How so? What is** the manner of **shaving that involves destruction? You must say this is** shaving with **a razor.** The Rabbis learn from here that the implement forbidden to a priest is the same one that must be used for the shaving of a leper, namely a razor.


###### Nazir 40b:7
[Nazir 40b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/40b:7)

מִמַּאי? דִּילְמָא לְעוֹלָם אֲפִילּוּ לִיקְּטוֹ בְּמַלְקֵט וּבְרָהִיטְנֵי נָמֵי מִצְוָה קָעָבֵיד, וְהָא קָאָתֵי לְאַשְׁמוֹעִינַן דַּאֲפִילּוּ בְּתַעַר לָא מִיחַיַּיב עֲלֵיהּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **From where** do we know that this is correct? **Perhaps** if a leper **actually removed it with tweezers or a plane he also performs the mitzva** and thereby fulfills his obligation, **and this** verse **is coming to teach us that even** if the leper shaved **with a razor he is not liable for** destroying his beard. In other words, one might have thought that a leper is prohibited from shaving with a razor, and the verse teaches that this is not correct. If so, there is no proof from here that the shaving of a leper must be performed with a razor.


###### Nazir 40b:8
[Nazir 40b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/40b:8)

אָמְרִי: אִי סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ כִּי עָבֵיד נָמֵי בְּמַלְקֵט וּבְרָהִיטְנֵי שַׁפִּיר דָּמֵי, לִישְׁתּוֹק קְרָא מִינֵּיהּ, וַאֲנָא אָמֵינָא: וּמָה גַּבֵּי נָזִיר דְּאִיסּוּרָא קָא עָבֵיד, אֲפִילּוּ הָכִי מִחַיַּיב, הָכָא דְּמִצְוָה — לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**They say** in response: **If it should enter your mind that if** a leper **performs** his shaving **with tweezers or a plane too,** it is **well** and he has performed the mitzva, then **let the verse be silent** and refrain **from** the extra phrase, “his beard.” **And** I would **say** the following: **And just as with regard to a nazirite, who performs a transgression** by shaving his hair during his naziriteship and who, **even so,** is **deemed liable** for removing hair without the use of a razor, **here** too, in the case of a leper, **where** his shaving is **a mitzva,** does it **not** follow **all the more so** that he should be permitted to shave with any implement?