## Nazir Daf 58a

###### Nazir 58a:1
[Nazir 58a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/58a:1)

יָכוֹל אַף מְצוֹרָע כֵּן — תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״רֹאשׁוֹ״. וְתַנְיָא אִידַּךְ: ״רֹאשׁוֹ״, מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר? לְפִי שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר גַּבֵּי נָזִיר ״תַּעַר לֹא יַעֲבֹר עַל רֹאשׁוֹ״, יָכוֹל אַף נָזִיר מְצוֹרָע כֵּן — תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״רֹאשׁוֹ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
one **might** have thought that **even a leper** should **likewise** be prohibited from rounding off his head. **The verse** therefore specifically **states “his head”** to teach that the mitzva for a leper to remove all the hair of his head overrides the prohibition against rounding one’s head. **And it was taught in another** *baraita*: **Why must the verse state: “His head,”** with regard to a leper? **Since it states, with regard to a nazirite: “No razor shall come upon his head”** (Numbers 6:5), one **might** have thought that **even a nazirite leper** should **likewise** be prohibited from shaving upon his purification. Therefore **the verse states: “His head,”** from which it is derived that a nazirite who contracted leprosy must shave his head like any other leper.


###### Nazir 58a:2
[Nazir 58a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/58a:2)

מַאי לָאו תַּנָּאֵי הִיא, לְמַאן דְּאָמַר מִנָּזִיר, קָסָבַר: הַקָּפַת כׇּל הָרֹאשׁ — לֹא שְׁמָהּ הַקָּפָה, וְכִי אֲתָא קְרָא — לְמִידְחֵי אֶת לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה וַעֲשֵׂה. וְאִידַּךְ סָבַר: הַקָּפַת כׇּל הָרֹאשׁ — שְׁמָהּ הַקָּפָה, וְכִי אֲתָא קְרָא — לְמִידְחֵי לָאו גְּרֵידָא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: **What, is it not** correct to say that this **is** a dispute between ***tanna’im*? According to the one who says** that the additional term “his head” is to counter a possible prohibition derived **from** the case of **a nazirite,** he **holds** that **rounding the entire head is not called rounding,** and therefore there is no need for a verse to teach that a leper can shave all the hair off his head. **And when the verse** “He shall shave all his hair; his head” **comes,** it comes **to override** both the **prohibition**: “No razor shall come upon his head,” **and** the **positive mitzva** stated with regard to a nazirite: “He shall be sacred, he shall let the locks of the hair of his head grow long” (Numbers 6:5). **And the other** *tanna* **holds** that **rounding the entire head is called rounding, and** consequently, **when the verse comes,** it serves **to override only** the **prohibition** against rounding one’s head.


###### Nazir 58a:3
[Nazir 58a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/58a:3)

אָמַר רָבָא: דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא הַקָּפַת כׇּל הָרֹאשׁ — לֹא שְׁמָהּ הַקָּפָה. וְכִי אֲתָא קְרָא, כְּגוֹן שֶׁהִקִּיף וּלְבַסּוֹף גִּילַּח. כֵּיוָן דְּאִילּוּ גַּלְּחֵיהּ בְּחַד זִימְנָא — לָא מִיחַיַּיב, כִּי הִקִּיף וּלְבַסּוֹף גִּילַּח — נָמֵי לָא מִיחַיַּיב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said** in refutation of this proof: No; it is possible **that everyone** agrees that **rounding the entire head is not called rounding,** even the *tanna* who maintains that the purpose of the verse is to permit a leper to round his head. **And when the verse comes,** it serves to address a particular case, **such as** one **in which he rounded** off only the corners of the head **and ultimately shaved** off the rest of his hair. Although shaving only the corners of one’s head is prohibited by the Torah, in this instance he is exempt. The reason is that **since if he shaved** his entire head **at one time he would not be liable,** then **if he rounded** off his head **and ultimately shaved he is also not liable.** Since a leper is permitted to shave all of his head, he can do so in any manner he chooses.


###### Nazir 58a:4
[Nazir 58a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/58a:4)

וּמִי כְּתַב קְרָא הָכִי? וְהָאָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: כׇּל מָקוֹם שֶׁאַתָּה מוֹצֵא עֲשֵׂה וְלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה, אִם אַתָּה יָכוֹל לְקַיֵּים אֶת שְׁנֵיהֶם — מוּטָב, וְאִם לָאו, יָבוֹא עֲשֵׂה וְיִדְחֶה אֶת לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises a difficulty with this explanation: **And does the verse write this?** Is it permitted unnecessarily to transgress a prohibition *ab initio*? **But didn’t Reish Lakish say: Any place that you find positive mitzvot and prohibitions** that clash with one another, **if you can** find some way to **fulfill both,** that is **preferable; and if** that is **not** possible, **the positive mitzva will come and override the prohibition?** If it is not prohibited to round the entire head, the leper can shave his hair in a permitted manner, and the Torah would not have allowed him to do so in a way that involves the violation of a prohibition.


###### Nazir 58a:5
[Nazir 58a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/58a:5)

אֶלָּא: דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא הַקָּפַת כׇּל הָרֹאשׁ — שְׁמָהּ הַקָּפָה. וּמַאן דְּמוֹקֵים לִקְרָא לְמִידְחֵי לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה וַעֲשֵׂה, לָאו גְּרֵידָא מְנָלֵיהּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** the Gemara retracts its previous explanation and states the opposite. It is **that everyone** agrees that **rounding the entire head is called rounding.** If so, the *baraita* that states that the verse: “He shall shave all his hair; his head” (Leviticus 14:9), comes to permit the rounding of a leper’s entire head is easily understood, as it is derived from here that a positive mitzva overrides a prohibition. **But** according to **the one who establishes the verse** “He shall shave all his hair; his head” as coming **to override** the **prohibition and** the **positive mitzva** of a nazirite, **from where does he** derive that a positive mitzva overrides **only a prohibition?**


###### Nazir 58a:6
[Nazir 58a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/58a:6)

יָלֵיף מִ״גְּדִילִים״. דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״לֹא תִלְבַּשׁ שַׁעַטְנֵז״, וְתַנְיָא: ״לֹא תִלְבַּשׁ שַׁעַטְנֵז״, הָא ״גְּדִילִים תַּעֲשֶׂה לָךְ״ מֵהֶם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: He **derives** it **from** the case of ritual **fringes.** How so? **As the verse states: “You shall not wear diverse kinds,** wool and linen together” (Deuteronomy 22:11), **and it is taught** in a *baraita* that although the command **“You shall not wear diverse kinds”** applies to most cases, the juxtaposed verse: **“You shall make for you fringes”** (Deuteronomy 22:12), teaches that one may prepare ritual fringes even **from** diverse kinds of wool and linen. This teaches that the positive mitzva of ritual fringes overrides the prohibition of diverse kinds.


###### Nazir 58a:7
[Nazir 58a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/58a:7)

וּמַאן דְּנָפְקָא לֵיהּ מֵ״רֹאשׁוֹ״, מַאי טַעְמָא לָא נָפְקָא לֵיהּ מִ״גְּדִילִים״? אָמַר לָךְ: לְכִדְרָבָא הוּא דַּאֲתָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** the *tanna* **who derives** the principle that a positive mitzva overrides a prohibition **from “his head”** stated with regard to a leper, **what is the reason that he does not derive it from** the verse that deals with ritual **fringes?** Why does he require another source? The Gemara answers: He could have **said to you** that the verse concerning ritual fringes does not teach that principle, as **it comes for that which Rava** said.


###### Nazir 58a:8
[Nazir 58a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/58a:8)

דְּרָבָא רָמֵי: כְּתִיב ״וְנָתְנוּ עַל צִיצִת הַכָּנָף״ — מִין כָּנָף, ״פְּתִיל תְּכֵלֶת״. וּכְתִיב: ״צֶמֶר וּפִשְׁתִּים יַחְדָּו״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**As Rava raises a contradiction: It is written: “And that they put on the fringe of each corner** a thread of sky blue” (Numbers 15:38). The phrase “the fringe of each corner” indicates that ritual fringes must be of the same **type as the corner** of the robe itself, upon which they must place **“a thread of sky blue.” And** yet **it is written:** “You shall not wear diverse kinds, **wool and linen together”** (Deuteronomy 22:11). The juxtaposition of these two verses teaches that ritual fringes must be made from wool and linen.


###### Nazir 58a:9
[Nazir 58a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/58a:9)

הָא כֵיצַד? צֶמֶר וּפִשְׁתִּים — פּוֹטְרִים בֵּין בְּמִינָן, בֵּין שֶׁלֹּא בְּמִינָן. שְׁאָר מִינִין — בְּמִינָן פּוֹטְרִין, שֶׁלֹּא בְּמִינָן אֵין פּוֹטְרִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**How so?** How can ritual fringes be made from the same material as the garment itself and also from wool and linen? The answer is that ritual fringes of **wool and linen exempt** a garment and fulfill the obligation of ritual fringes **whether** the garment is **of their** own **type,** i.e., wool and linen, or **whether it is not of their own type,** i.e., all other materials. By contrast, with regard to ritual fringes of **other types** of materials, **they exempt** a garment **of their** own **type;** but **they do not exempt** a garment that is **not of their type.** According to this, the verse juxtaposing ritual fringes to diverse kinds serves to teach that ritual fringes made of wool and linen exempt any garment, not to teach that a positive mitzva overrides a prohibition.


###### Nazir 58a:10
[Nazir 58a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/58a:10)

וְהַאי תַּנָּא דְּמַפֵּיק לְ״רֹאשׁוֹ״ לְלָאו גְּרֵידָא, דְּאָתֵי עֲשֵׂה וְדָחֵי אֶת לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה וַעֲשֵׂה, מְנָלַן? נָפְקָא לֵיהּ מִ״זְּקָנוֹ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara continues this line of inquiry: **And** according to **this *tanna*, who derives from** the term **“his head”** that a positive mitzva overrides **only a prohibition, from where do we** derive the *halakha* **that** the **positive mitzva** of a leper’s shaving **comes and overrides** the **prohibition and the positive mitzva** of a nazirite? From where does this **tanna** learn that a nazirite who contracted leprosy is obligated to shave? The Gemara answers: **He derives it from** the verse: “He shall shave all his hair; his head and **his beard”** (Leviticus 14:9).


###### Nazir 58a:11
[Nazir 58a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/58a:11)

דְּתַנְיָא: ״זְקָנוֹ״, מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר? לְפִי שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״וּפְאַת זְקָנָם לֹא יְגַלֵּחוּ״, יָכוֹל אַף כֹּהֵן מְצוֹרָע כֵּן — תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״זְקָנוֹ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**As it is taught** in a *baraita*: **Why** must **the verse state: “His beard”?** After all, a beard is already included in the phrase “all his hair.” The *baraita* answers: **Since it is stated,** with regard to priests: **“Neither shall they shave off the corners of their beard”** (Leviticus 21:5), one **might** have thought that **even a priest who is a leper is included** in this prohibition against shaving his beard. Therefore, **the verse states: “His beard”** in connection to a leper.


###### Nazir 58a:12
[Nazir 58a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/58a:12)

וּמַאן דְּמַפֵּיק לֵיהּ לְ״רֹאשׁוֹ״ לַעֲשֵׂה וְלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה, לֵילַף מִ״זְּקָנוֹ״! וְלִיטַעְמָיךְ, דְּקַיְימָא לַן בְּעָלְמָא

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And the one who derives** from **“his head” that** the mitzva of shaving overrides both **the positive mitzva and prohibition** of a nazirite, **let him derive** this principle **from “his beard.”** The Gemara refutes this suggestion: **And according to your reasoning,** that the term “his beard” teaches that a positive mitzva overrides the prohibition and positive mitzva of a nazirite, that **which we maintain generally,**