## Nazir Daf 42a

###### Nazir 42a:1
[Nazir 42a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/42a:1)

הָא ״גְּדִילִים תַּעֲשֶׂה לָּךְ״ מֵהֶם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
indicates that fringes in the mitzva stated in the adjacent verse: **“You shall make for yourself fringes”** (Deuteronomy 22:12), can be **from them,** wool and linen. By juxtaposing the mitzva of ritual fringes to the prohibition against diverse kinds of cloth, the Torah teaches that the positive mitzva of ritual fringes, which includes dyed blue wool, overrides the prohibition against diverse kinds of cloth, i.e., one may attach woolen ritual fringes to a linen garment. From here one derives the general principle that a positive mitzva overrides a prohibition.


###### Nazir 42a:2
[Nazir 42a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/42a:2)

אָמַר מָר: וְכוּלָּם שֶׁגִּילְּחוּ שֶׁלֹּא בְּתַעַר, אוֹ שֶׁשִּׁיְּירוּ שְׁתֵּי שְׂעָרוֹת — לֹא עָשׂוּ וְלֹא כְלוּם. אָמַר רַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אִיקָא: זֹאת אוֹמֶרֶת, רוּבּוֹ כְּכוּלּוֹ מִדְּאוֹרָיְיתָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara returns to the mishna that teaches that nazirites, lepers, and Levites must shave their hair. **The Master said** above: **And** with regard to **all of them, if they shaved with** an implement **other than a razor, or if they left two hairs** uncut, **they have done nothing. Rav Aḥa, son of Rav Ika, said: That is to say** that the principle: **The majority of** an entity is considered **like all of it,** applies **by Torah law.**


###### Nazir 42a:3
[Nazir 42a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/42a:3)

מִמַּאי — מִדְּגַלִּי רַחֲמָנָא גַּבֵּי נָזִיר ״בְּיוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי יְגַלְּחֶנּוּ״ — הָכָא הוּא דְּעַד דְּאִיכָּא כּוּלּוֹ. הָא בְּעָלְמָא: רוּבּוֹ כְּכוּלּוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **From where** do we learn this? The Gemara explains: This principle is derived **from** the fact **that the Merciful One revealed** in the Torah and specified **with regard to a nazirite: “On the seventh day he shall shave it”** (Numbers 6:9), despite the fact that the same verse already stated: “And he shall shave his head on the day of his cleansing.” This teaches that **it is** only in this case **here** that he does not fulfill the mitzva of shaving **until there is** the removal **of all of it,** i.e., shaving part of his head is insufficient. This shows that **in general the majority of** an entity is **like all of it.**


###### Nazir 42a:4
[Nazir 42a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/42a:4)

מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא: הַאי בְּנָזִיר טָמֵא כְּתִיב! מַחֲכוּ עֲלַהּ בְּמַעְרְבָא: מִכְּדֵי נָזִיר טָמֵא דִּבְתַעַר מְנָלַן — מִנָּזִיר טָהוֹר יָלֵיף, לַיְתֵי נָזִיר טָהוֹר וְלֵילַף מִנָּזִיר טָמֵא: מָה טָמֵא כִּי שַׁיַּיר שְׁתֵּי שְׂעָרוֹת — וְלָא כְּלוּם עֲבַד, הָכָא נָמֵי, כִּי שַׁיַּיר שְׁתֵּי שְׂעָרוֹת — וְלָא כְּלוּם עֲבַד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, objects to this** assertion. **This** verse: “On the seventh day he shall shave it,” **is written with regard to a ritually impure nazirite,** not a pure one, whereas the *halakha* in the mishna applies even to a pure nazirite. This shows that the above inference is invalid. **They laughed at** this difficulty **in the West,** i.e., Eretz Yisrael: **After all, from where do we** derive the *halakha* that **an impure nazirite** shaves **with a razor?** It is **derived from** the *halakha* of **a pure nazirite.** If so, **let** the case of **a pure nazirite come and derive** the following *halakha* **from** the case of **an impure nazirite: Just as** with regard to **an impure** nazirite, **if he leaves two hairs he has done nothing, here too,** if a pure nazirite **leaves two hairs he has done nothing.**


###### Nazir 42a:5
[Nazir 42a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/42a:5)

בָּעֵי אַבָּיֵי: נָזִיר שֶׁגִּילַּח וְשִׁיֵּיר שְׁתֵּי שְׂעָרוֹת, צָמַח רֹאשׁוֹ וְחָזַר וְגִילְּחָן, מַהוּ? מִי מְעַכְּבִי אוֹ לָא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
On the same topic, **Abaye raised a dilemma:** With regard to **a nazirite who shaved and left two hairs,** which is not considered an act of shaving, if the hairs of **his head grew and he again shaved,** this time those two hairs alone, **what is** the *halakha*? **Do** these hairs **invalidate** the fulfillment of his obligation **or not?** Has he now completed his initial act of shaving, or is the shaving of two hairs from a head full of hair of no significance, and he must now shave his entire head?


###### Nazir 42a:6
[Nazir 42a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/42a:6)

בָּעֵי רָבָא: נָזִיר שֶׁגִּילַּח וְהִנִּיחַ שְׁתֵּי שְׂעָרוֹת, וְגִילַּח אַחַת וְנָשְׁרָה אַחַת, מַהוּ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַחָא מִדִּיפְתִּי לְרָבִינָא: גִּילַּח שַׂעֲרָה שַׂעֲרָה קָא מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְרָבָא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Similarly, **Rava raised a dilemma:** With regard to **a nazirite who shaved and left two hairs, and** afterward **shaved one** of them, **and** the other **one fell out** of its own accord, **what is** the *halakha*? Is this considered shaving one’s entire head or not? **Rav Aḥa of Difti said to Ravina: Is Rava raising a dilemma** as to whether one can **shave** his head one **hair by** one **hair?** How does this case differ from that of one who shaves his entire head one hair at a time, which is a fulfillment of his obligation?


###### Nazir 42a:7
[Nazir 42a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/42a:7)

אֶלָּא אֵימָא: נָשְׁרָה אַחַת וְגִילַּח אַחַת, מַהוּ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: גִּילּוּחַ אֵין כָּאן, שֵׂעָר אֵין כָּאן. אִי שֵׂעָר אֵין כָּאן — גִּילּוּחַ יֵשׁ כָּאן! הָכִי קָאָמַר: אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁשֵּׂעָר אֵין כָּאן, מִצְוַת גִּילּוּחַ אֵין כָּאן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, say** that the dilemma is as follows: If **one** hair **fell out and he shaved** the other **one, what is** the *halakha*? Has he performed the obligation of shaving if there was only one hair left when he came to shave? Ravina **said to him:** In that case **there is no shaving here; there is no hair here.** The Gemara expresses surprise at this expression: **If there is no hair here,** then **there is shaving here,** as no hair remains. The Gemara explains: **This is what he said: Even though there is no hair here,** as only one hair remains, nevertheless **there is no** fulfillment of the **mitzva of shaving here,** as he failed to shave it all on the first attempt, and the second time he shaved less than the required amount.


###### Nazir 42a:8
[Nazir 42a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/42a:8)

**מַתְנִי׳** נָזִיר חוֹפֵף וּמְפַסְפֵּס, אֲבָל לֹא סוֹרֵק.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** **A nazirite may shampoo [*ḥofef* ]** his head **and separate [*mefaspes*]** his hairs manually, without concern that hairs might fall out. **However, he may not comb** his hair.


###### Nazir 42a:9
[Nazir 42a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/42a:9)

**גְּמָ׳** חוֹפֵף וּמְפַסְפֵּס, מַנִּי? רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הִיא, דְּאָמַר: דָּבָר שֶׁאֵין מִתְכַּוֵּין — מוּתָּר. אֲבָל לֹא סוֹרֵק — אֲתָאן לְרַבָּנַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The Gemara clarifies: **Who is** the *tanna* who maintains that a nazirite **may shampoo and separate** his hairs? **It is Rabbi Shimon, who says: An unintentional act is permitted.** Even if hairs do fall out as a result of this action, as he did not intend this to happen the action is permitted. Yet in the latter clause of the mishna, which states: **However, he may not comb** his hair, **we have come to** the opinion of **the Rabbis.** Although this nazirite also does not intend to tear out any hair when he combs it, it is nevertheless prohibited.


###### Nazir 42a:10
[Nazir 42a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/42a:10)

רֵישָׁא רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן וְסֵיפָא רַבָּנַן? אָמַר רַבָּה: כּוּלָּהּ רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הִיא, כׇּל הַסּוֹרֵק — לְהָסִיר נִימִין מְדוּלְדָּלוֹת מִתְכַּוֵּין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
This leads to a surprising conclusion, that **the first clause** represents the opinion of **Rabbi Shimon and the latter clause** is the opinion of **the Rabbis. Rabba said:** The **entire** mishna **is** in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Shimon,** as he maintains that **anyone who combs** his hair **intends to remove stray hairs,** and therefore this is considered an intentional act.


###### Nazir 42a:11
[Nazir 42a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/42a:11)

**מַתְנִי׳** רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אוֹמֵר: לֹא יָחוֹף בַּאֲדָמָה, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמַּשֶּׁרֶת אֶת הַשֵּׂעָר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** **Rabbi Yishmael says:** A nazirite **may not shampoo** his hair **with earth because** this **causes the hair to fall out.**


###### Nazir 42a:12
[Nazir 42a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/42a:12)

**גְּמָ׳** אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: ״מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהִיא מַשֶּׁרֶת אֶת הַשֵּׂעָר״ תְּנַן, אוֹ דִּלְמָא: ״מִפְּנֵי הַמַּשֶּׁרֶת״ תְּנַן? לְמַאי נָפְקָא מִינַּהּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** **A dilemma was raised before** the Sages: What is the precise wording of the mishna? Do **we learn: Because it removes hair,** i.e., earth in general removes hair, **or do we perhaps learn: Because of that which removes** hair. In other words, although some types of earth do not remove hair, it is prohibited to use these as well, due to those types that do remove hair. The Gemara inquires: **What** is the **difference** of this textual question?


###### Nazir 42a:13
[Nazir 42a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/42a:13)

כְּגוֹן דְּאִיכָּא אֲדָמָה דְּלָא מַתְּרָא. אִי אָמְרַתְּ ״מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהִיא מַשֶּׁרֶת״ תְּנַן, הֵיכָא דְּיָדְעִינַן דְּלָא מַתְּרָא — שַׁפִּיר. אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ ״מִפְּנֵי הַמַּשֶּׁרֶת״ — כְּלָל כְּלָל לָא. תֵּיקוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: There is a difference in a case **where there is** a type of **earth that does not remove** hair. **If you say** that **we learned** in the mishna: **Because it removes** hair, then in a case **where we know that it does not remove** hair **it is fine** to shampoo with that substance. **However, if you say** the text reads: **Because of that which removes** hair, this indicates that the Sages prohibited using any type of earth, due to the type that removes hair. If so, a nazirite may **not** shampoo his head with any earth **at all,** not even if it does not remove hair. No answer was found, and the Gemara says that the dilemma **shall stand** unresolved.


###### Nazir 42a:14
[Nazir 42a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/42a:14)

**מַתְנִי׳** נָזִיר שֶׁהָיָה שׁוֹתֶה יַיִן כׇּל הַיּוֹם — אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב אֶלָּא אַחַת. אָמְרוּ לוֹ: ״אַל תִּשְׁתֶּה״ ״אַל תִּשְׁתֶּה״, וְהוּא שׁוֹתֶה — חַיָּיב עַל כׇּל אַחַת וְאַחַת. הָיָה מְגַלֵּחַ כׇּל הַיּוֹם — אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב אֶלָּא אַחַת. אָמְרוּ לוֹ: ״אַל תְּגַלֵּחַ״ ״אַל תְּגַלֵּחַ״, וְהוּא מְגַלֵּחַ — חַיָּיב עַל כׇּל אַחַת וְאַחַת. הָיָה מִטַּמֵּא לְמֵתִים כׇּל הַיּוֹם — אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב אֶלָּא אַחַת. אָמְרוּ לוֹ: ״אַל תִּטַּמֵּא״ ״אַל תִּטַּמֵּא״, וְהוּא מִטַּמֵּא — חַיָּיב עַל כׇּל אַחַת וְאַחַת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** **A nazirite who was drinking wine all day is liable** to receive **only one** set of lashes. If people **said to him** during the course of the day: **Do not drink, do not drink, and** nevertheless **he** continues to **drink, he is liable for each and every** time he was warned. If a nazirite **kept shaving all day, he is liable** to receive **only one** set of lashes. If **they said to him: Do not shave, do not shave, and he shaves, he is liable for each and every** time he was warned. If he **became ritually impure from a corpse** many times **all day, he is liable** to receive **only one** set of lashes. If **they said to him: Do not become impure, do not become impure, and he** continues to **become impure, he is liable for each and every** time he was warned.