ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Nazir 41
NAZIR 41 & 42 - sponsored by Harav Ari Bergmann of Lawrence, N.Y., out of
love for Torah and those who study it.
(a) According to Rebbi Eliezer, the Isur of destroying one's beard
incorporates any form of destruction, as we just learned. He learns from the
1. ... "Ta'ar Lo Ya'avor al Rosho - that a Nazir is forbidden to shave with
a razor (exclusively - like Rebbi Yonasan on Daf 39b).
(b) What induces him to make this D'rashah - is the fact that the Torah has
already written "es Kol Se'aro", in which case "es Rosho" and "es Z'kano"
2. ... "Yegalach es Kol Se'aro, es Rosho *es Z'kano*" - that a Metzora who
is also a Nazir is nevertheless obligated to shave his hair with a razor.
(c) If Rebbi Eliezer's opinion is based on the fact that a Nazir only
transgresses if he shaves with a razor (like Rebbi Yonasan above), the
Rabbanan hold that he transgresses even if he destroys his hair in some
other way (like Rebbi Yashiyah), in which case they cannot learn from here
that a Metzora is obligated to shave using a razor.
(a) We ask on Rebbi Eliezer that perhaps "Rosho" comes to *permit* the
Metzora to shave with a razor, and not to *obligate* him? (like we asked
above on the Rabbanan) - to which we give the second of the previous
answers, namely, the principle of Resh Lakish would not then permit him to
use a razor.
(b) We deliberately avoid presenting the first answer that we gave there
(that we would then learn this from a 'Kal va'Chomer' from Nazir who is not
a Metzora, who did not perform a sin) - because, on the grounds that a Nazir
would only contravene one La'av, whereas a Metzora would contravene two,
this 'Kal va'Chomer' is easily refutable (Tosfos).
(a) The Rabbanan (who learn the obligation to shave the Metzora from
"Z'kano") learn from "Rosho" - that the Mitzvah of shaving overrides the sin
of cutting off the Pei'os.
(b) In spite of the fact that the Torah has already written ...
1. ... "Z'kano", it still needs to write "Rosho" - because we would
otherwise have thought that someone who shaves off *all* the hair of his
head does not contravene the La'av of cutting off one's Pei'os, and it is
not therefore necessary to mention it (since it is included in "Yegalach es
Kol Se'aro"). By writing Rosho, the Torah comes to teach us that 'Hakafas
Kol ha'Rosh Sh'mah Hakafah' (shaving off *all* the hair of one's head is
generally a contravention of the La'av of cutting one's Pei'os), which the
Torah is permitting here.
(c) We would not otherwise have known that a razor must be used to shave,
because one contravenes the La'av of cutting the Pei'os irrespective of what
one uses ('ke'Ein Ta'ar' - incorporating scissors).
2. ... "Rosho", it still needs to write "Z'kano" - because from "Rosho" we
learn that 1. 'Hakafas Kol ha'Rosh Sh'mah Hakafah'; 2. the La'av of cutting
one's Pei'os is rescinded due to 'Asei Docheh Lo Sa'aseh', but we would not
know that one requires a razor. *That* is what we learn from "Z'kano".
(a) The Mitzvah of shaving the head of a Nazir who is a Metzora overrides -
two La'avin ("Ta'ar Lo Ya'avor al Roshso", "Gadeil Pera ... " and "Lo Sakifu
(b) We might know that the Asei of shaving of a Metzora overrides all three
from the Limud of "Rosho", which is all-embracing (though this appears to
clash with what we learned earlier). Alternatively - we might also know it
from the Limud of "Z'kano", which overrides the La'av and the Asei of
Kohanim (as we learned above), and there is no S'vara to differentiate
between one La'av and an Asei and two La'avin and an Asei (Tosfos).
(c) We attempt to resolve this with the fact that the La'av and the Asei of
Kohanim, which "Z'kano" comes to override do not pertain to everyone,
whereas the La'avin and the Asei of a Nazir who is a Metzora that are being
overridden by "Rosho" do (and we cannot learn what is 'Shaveh be'Kol' from
what is not) - by pointing out that the latter (which are confined either to
a Nazir or to men) are not 'Shaveh ba'Kol' either (though the Gemara in
Perek 'Sh'nei Nezirim' seems to say otherwise - see Orach Mishor).
(d) According to Rebbi Eliezer, who learns from "Rosho" that the Mitzvah to
shave overrides the La'av and the Asei of a Nazir who is a Metzora, the
Torah nevertheless need to write "Z'kano". We cannot learn that the Mitzvah
overrides the La'avin and the Asei of Kohanim from the Limud of "Rosho" -
either because the Isurim of a Nazir are different (more lenient) than those
of Kehunah, seeing as they can be revoked, or because the Isurim of Kehunah
are different (more stringent) than those of Nazir), seeing as the Torah
gave the Kohanim more Mitzvos than others.
(a) We just learned that the Rabbanan learn 'Asei Docheh Lo Sa'aseh' from
"Rosho" (of Metzora). Rebbi Eliezer (who uses "Rosho" to obligate the
Metzora to shave with a razor, learns 'Asei Docheh Lo Sa'aseh' - from the
juxtaposition of "Gedilim Ta'aseh Lach" to "Lo Silbash Sha'atnez") in Ki
Seitzei, permitting Sha'atnez in Tzitzis (i.e. woolen [blue threads of]
Tzitzis on a linen garment.
(b) He cannot learn it from the fact that the shaving of a Metzora overrides
the La'av of ...
1. ... Hakafah of Kohanim - because the latter does not pertain to everyone.
(c) The Sugya in Yevamos, where they learn it from "Gedilim" learns 'Hakafas
Kol ha'Rosh Sh'mah Hakafah' from "Rosho" (in which case the Pasuk is not
redundant to learn from it 'Asei Docheh Lo Sa'aseh'); whereas our Sugya,
where the Rabbanan learn 'Asei Docheh Lo Sa'aseh' from "Rosho" - holds that
'Hakafas Kol ha'Rosh Sh'mah Hakafah' is a S'vara (like the Sugya in 'Sh'nei
2. ... Nazir - because the Isur can be revoked.