## Nazir Daf 58b

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

דְּלָא אָתֵי עֲשֵׂה וְדָחֵי אֶת לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה וַעֲשֵׂה, לֵילַף מִכֹּהֵן, דְּדָחֵי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**that a positive mitzva does not come and override a prohibition and a positive mitzva, let him derive from** the fact that a leprous **priest** must shave **that** this mitzva **does override** a prohibition and another positive mitzva.


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

אֶלָּא, מִכֹּהֵן לָא יָלְפִינַן: מָה לְכֹהֵן שֶׁכֵּן לָאו שֶׁאֵינוֹ שָׁוֶה בַּכֹּל. נָזִיר מִכֹּהֵן נָמֵי לָא יָלֵיף, שֶׁכֵּן לָאו שֶׁאֵינוֹ שָׁוֶה בַּכֹּל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** he would explain that **we do not derive** other cases of the Torah **from** the *halakha* of **a priest,** for the following reason: **What** is different about the prohibition **of a priest is that** it is **a prohibition that is not equally** applicable **to all,** i.e., the prohibitions of a priest do not apply to Israelites. For the same reason, the case of **a nazirite also cannot be derived from** that of **a priest, as** the prohibition of a priest is **a prohibition that is not equally** applicable **to all,** in contrast to that of a nazirite. Consequently, the derivation from “his head” is necessary to teach that the shaving of a leper overrides the prohibition stated with regard to a nazirite.


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

וּמַאן דְּמוֹקֵים לְהַאי ״רֹאשׁוֹ״ בְּנָזִיר, לְמָה לִי ״זְקָנוֹ״?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara turns its attention to the other opinion: **And** according to **the one who establishes this** verse: “He shall shave all his hair; **his head** and his beard” (Leviticus 14:9), as referring **to a nazirite,** i.e., he derives from this verse the principle that in certain cases, including that of a leprous priest, a positive mitzva overrides a prohibition and a positive mitzva, **why do I** need the term **“his beard”?**


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

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **He requires it for that which is taught** in a *baraita* with regard to the shaving of a leper, which must be performed with a razor: **Why** must **the verse state: “His beard,”** as it already stated that he shaves all his hair? **Since it is stated: “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 the prohibition against shaving. **The verse** therefore **states: “His beard,”** to teach that a leprous priest must shave his beard as well.


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

וּמְנָלַן דִּבְתַעַר — דְּתַנְיָא: ״וּפְאַת זְקָנָם לֹא יְגַלֵּחוּ״, יָכוֹל אַף גִּילְּחוֹ בְּמִסְפָּרַיִם יְהֵא חַיָּיב, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְלֹא תַשְׁחִית״. אִי לֹא תַשְׁחִית, יָכוֹל לִיקְּטָן בְּמַלְקֵט וּבְרָהִיטְנֵי חַיָּיב —

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And from where do we** derive that a leper must shave **with a razor? As it is taught** in a *baraita*: **“Neither shall they shave off the corners of their beard”** (Leviticus 21:5). One **might** have thought that priests **should be liable even if they shaved** their beards **with scissors. The verse states: “And you shall not destroy** the corners of your beard” (Leviticus 19:27), which teaches that the prohibition applies only to the destruction of the beard from its roots. **If** the sole criterion is the phrase **“you shall not destroy,”** one **might** have thought that **if he extracted** his hair **with tweezers or** removed his hair **with** a carpenter’s **plane, he should** likewise **be liable** due to the prohibition against destroying his hair.


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

תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וּפְאַת זְקָנָם לֹא יְגַלֵּחוּ״. אֵיזוֹ גִּילּוּחַ שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ הַשְׁחָתָה — הֱוֵי אוֹמֵר: זֶה תַּעַר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**The verse** therefore **states: “Neither shall they shave off the corners of their beard.”** Together the two verses lead to the following conclusion: **Which** is the type of **shaving [*giluaḥ*] that involves destruction [*hashḥata*]? You must say it is a razor.** The fact that it was necessary for the Torah to permit a leper to shave his beard with a razor, notwithstanding the prohibition against using this implement, proves that the positive mitzva overrides this prohibition, as derived from the term “his beard.”


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

וּמַאן דְּמַפֵּיק לֵיהּ לְהַאי ״רֹאשׁוֹ״ לְלָאו גְּרֵידָא, לְמָה לִי לְמִיכְתַּב ״רֹאשׁוֹ״, וּלְמָה לִי לְמִיכְתַּב ״זְקָנוֹ״?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara continues to inquire: **And** according to **the one who derives from** the term **“his head”** the principle **that** a positive mitzva overrides **only a prohibition, why do I** need the verse **to write: “His head,” and why do I** also need the same verse **to write: “His beard”?** Once is it derived from the phrase “his beard” that a positive mitzva overrides a positive mitzva and a prohibition, the same should certainly apply to a prohibition by itself.


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

מַשְׁמַע לְמִידְחֵי לָאו גְּרֵידָא, וּמַשְׁמַע לְמִידְחֵי לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה וַעֲשֵׂה. הִילְכָּךְ שָׁקוּל הוּא וְיָבוֹאוּ שְׁנֵיהֶן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: Both the term “his head” and the term “his beard” could come to **teach the overriding of only a prohibition, and** they also could **teach the overriding of a prohibition and a positive mitzva.** Since the verse is formulated in general terms, it includes a priest or a nazirite. **Therefore,** as it cannot be determined to which case the Torah is referring, **it is even,** i.e., equally balanced, **and** consequently **let both** terms **come** and teach this principle, one with regard to a nazirite, and the other with regard to a priest.


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

כֹּהֵן מִנָּזִיר לָא יָלֵיף, שֶׁכֵּן יֶשְׁנוֹ בִּשְׁאֵלָה. נָזִיר מִכֹּהֵן לָא יָלֵיף, שֶׁכֵּן לָאו שֶׁאֵינוֹ שָׁוֶה בַּכֹּל. וּבְעָלְמָא לָא יָלְפִינַן מִינַּיְיהוּ, מִשּׁוּם דְּאִיכָּא לְמִיפְרַךְ כְּדַאֲמַרַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara adds that both terms are necessary, as the *halakha* of **a priest cannot be derived from** that of **a nazirite, as** the case of a nazirite is lenient in that **it is** possible to dissolve naziriteship **by request** from a halakhic authority. Likewise, the *halakha* of **a nazirite cannot be derived from** that of **a priest, as** the case of a priest involves **a prohibition that is not equally** applicable **to all.** The Gemara comments: **And generally,** with regard to other *halakhot*, **we cannot derive from** these two cases that a positive mitzva overrides a prohibition and a positive mitzva, **due to** the fact that this argument **can be refuted as we said** here.


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

אָמַר רַב: מֵיקֵל אָדָם כׇּל גּוּפוֹ בְּתַעַר. מֵיתִיבִי: הַמַּעֲבִיר בֵּית הַשֶּׁחִי וּבֵית הָעֶרְוָה — הֲרֵי זֶה לוֹקֶה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rav said: A person** who is not a nazirite **may lighten** his burden by removing **all** the hair of **his body with a razor.** One who feels he has too much hair may shave all of it off with a razor, apart from his beard and the corners of his head. The Gemara **raises an objection** against this from a *baraita*: A man **who removes** the hair **of the armpit or the pubic** hair **is flogged** for transgressing the prohibition: “A man shall not put on a woman’s garment” (Deuteronomy 22:5), as this behavior is the manner of women.


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

הָא בְּתַעַר, הָא בַּמִּסְפָּרַיִם. וְהָא רַב נָמֵי בְּתַעַר קָאָמַר! כְּעֵין תַּעַר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: In **this** case he is flogged because he shaved **with a razor,** whereas in **that** case Rav said it is permitted because he was referring to one who removes hair **with scissors,** an act that is not considered a prohibition. The Gemara raises a difficulty: **But Rav said** it is permitted **with a razor as well.** The Gemara answers: He did not mean an actual razor; rather, he said that one may use an implement that is **similar to a razor,** i.e., scissors that cut very close to the skin, in the manner of a razor.


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

אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הַמַּעֲבִיר בֵּית הַשֶּׁחִי וּבֵית הָעֶרְוָה לוֹקֶה. מֵיתִיבִי: הַעֲבָרַת שֵׂיעָר אֵינָהּ מִדִּבְרֵי תוֹרָה, אֶלָּא מִדִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים. מַאי ״לוֹקֶה״ נָמֵי דְּקָאָמַר — מִדְּרַבָּנַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said** that **Rabbi Yoḥanan said:** A man **who removes** the hair **of the armpit or the pubic** hair **is flogged.** The Gemara **raises an objection** against this ruling: **The removal of hair is not** prohibited **by Torah law but by rabbinic law.** Why, then, is he liable to receive lashes? The Gemara explains: **What** does it mean **that** Rabbi Yoḥanan **says** that he **is flogged?** This means that he is flogged **by rabbinic law,** a punishment known as lashes for rebelliousness, for disobeying a rabbinic decree.