Nazir 40
Share this shiur:
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Nazir 40
שֶׁאֵין דָּנִין קַל מֵחָמוּר לְהַחְמִיר עָלָיו.
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. Since the case of a leper is more stringent than that of a nazirite, as a leper must shave his entire body, one cannot derive from the halakhot of a leper that a stringent halakha applies to a nazirite. It is therefore necessary for the verse to specify that a nazirite’s final shaving must be performed with a razor.
רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ, הֲרֵי הוּא אוֹמֵר ״תַּעַר לֹא יַעֲבוֹר עַל רֹאשׁוֹ עַד מְלֹאת״, הַתּוֹרָה אָמְרָה: ״אַחַר מְלֹאת״ — לֹא תְּהֵא תִּגְלַחַת אֶלָּא בְּתַעַר.
Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says that the term “razor” itself is not necessary to teach that a nazirite’s final shaving must be performed with a razor, as the verse states: “A razor shall not come upon his head until the completion of the days that he vowed naziriteship to God” (Numbers 6:5). This full sentence indicates that the Torah said: After the completion of his term the shaving must be performed only with a razor.
וְהָכְתִיב ״תַּעַר לֹא יַעֲבוֹר עַל רֹאשׁוֹ״!
The Gemara comments: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi claims that the term “razor” indicates that shaving, in this case that of a nazirite after the completion of his term, may be performed only with a razor. If so, the verse should be understood in the same manner with regard to the prohibition of shaving. But if one examines the first part of the verse by itself, isn’t it written: “A razor shall not come upon his head” (Numbers 6:5), and the first tanna, whose opinion Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi does not dispute, derives from this verse that he is prohibited from shaving by other means as well, notwithstanding the explicit mention of a razor.
לַעֲבוֹר עָלָיו בִּשְׁנֵי לָאוִין.
The Gemara explains that the phrase “shall not come upon his head” teaches that a nazirite may not remove his hair in any manner. As for the mention of razor in this context, it serves to teach that he will violate two prohibitions for this action of using a razor, one for removing his hair and one for doing so with a razor.
אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: לִלְקוֹת — בְּאַחַת, לְעַכֵּב — בִּשְׁתַּיִם, לִסְתּוֹר — אֵינוֹ סוֹתֵר אֶלָּא בְּרוֹב רֹאשׁוֹ וּבְתַעַר.
§ Concerning a nazirite who shaves his hair, Rav Ḥisda says: With regard to flogging, a nazirite who shaved his hair is flogged for shaving even one hair; with regard to invalidation, i.e., the ritual shaving of his hair at the end of his naziriteship, the shaving is invalidated if he failed to remove two hairs; and as for negating his naziriteship, shaving during his term negates it only if he shaved most of his head. And this applies only if he removed his hair with a razor.
בְּתַעַר — אִין, בְּמִידֵּי אַחֲרִינָא — לָא? וְהָקָתָנֵי: מִנַּיִן לְרַבּוֹת אֶת כׇּל הַמַּעֲבִירִין! אֶלָּא אֵימָא: כְּעֵין תַּעַר.
The Gemara asks: This indicates that according to the opinion of Rav Ḥisda, a nazirite who shaved with a razor, yes, he negates thirty days, whereas if he did so with anything else, no, he does not negate days. But isn’t it taught: From where is it derived to include all implements that remove hair, i.e., that a nazirite is liable if he uses any of them? The verse states: “Shall not come upon his head,” meaning in any manner. This indicates that a nazirite must add days to his term of naziriteship even if he shaved with an implement other than a razor. Rather, say that Rav Ḥisda meant: In the manner of a razor. That is, the nazirite negates his naziriteship only if he removes his hair as one does with a razor, without leaving any part of it.
תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי: נָזִיר שֶׁתָּלַשׁ, מֵירַט, סִיפְסֵף כׇּל שֶׁהוּא — אֵינוֹ סוֹתֵר אֶלָּא בְּרוֹב רֹאשׁוֹ וּבְתַעַר. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: כְּשֵׁם שֶׁשְׁתֵּי שְׂעָרוֹת מְעַכְּבוֹת בּוֹ, כָּךְ שְׁתֵּי שְׂעָרוֹת סוֹתְרוֹת בּוֹ.
This opinion is also taught in a baraita (Tosefta 4:3): With regard to a nazirite who tore out, uprooted, or pulled out any amount of hair, this negates days of his naziriteship only if he shaved most of his head, and only if he did so in the manner of a razor. Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda says in the name of Rabbi Shimon: Just as leaving two hairs invalidates his shaving of ritual purity at the end of his term, and the act is considered incomplete, so too, leaving a mere two hairs negates days of his naziriteship, if he shaved during his term.
תְּנַן הָתָם: שְׁלֹשָׁה מְגַלְּחִין, וְתִגְלַחְתָּן מִצְוָה: נָזִיר, וּמְצוֹרָע, וּלְוִיִּם. וְכוּלָּן שֶׁגִּילְּחוּ שֶׁלֹּא בְּתַעַר, אוֹ שֶׁשִּׁיְּירוּ שְׁתֵּי שְׂעָרוֹת — לֹא עָשׂוּ וְלֹא כְּלוּם.
§ We learned in a mishna there (Nega’im 14:4): Three types of people must shave their hair, and their shaving is a mitzva: A nazirite; and a leper, as it is stated: “And he who is to be cleansed shall wash his clothes, and shave off all his hair” (Leviticus 14:8–9). And the third category is Levites, when they were first sanctified for their service, as it is stated: “And this you shall do to them to cleanse them: Sprinkle the water of purification upon them, and let them cause a razor to pass over all their flesh” (Numbers 8:7). 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, i.e., they have not fulfilled their obligation.
אָמַר מָר: שְׁלֹשָׁה מְגַלְּחִין וְתִגְלַחְתָּן מִצְוָה. פְּשִׁיטָא! מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא מִשּׁוּם עַבּוֹרֵי שֵׂעָר הוּא, וַאֲפִילּוּ סָךְ נָשָׁא, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן דְּלָא.
The Gemara analyzes this mishna. The Master said there: Three types of people must shave and cut their hair, and their shaving is a mitzva. The Gemara asks: This is obvious; after all, doesn’t the Torah command all three to shave? The Gemara answers: The statement of the mishna is necessary, lest you say that the mitzva is due to and aimed at the removal of hair, and therefore even one who applied a depilatory [nasha] to remove his hair has fulfilled his obligation. The mishna therefore teaches us that this is not so, as the mitzva must be performed by shaving.
קָתָנֵי: וְכוּלָּן שֶׁגִּילְּחוּ שֶׁלֹּא בְּתַעַר. בִּשְׁלָמָא גַּבֵּי נָזִיר, כְּתִיב: ״תַּעַר לֹא יַעֲבוֹר עַל רֹאשׁוֹ״. וְגַבֵּי לְוִיִּם כְּתִיב: ״וְהֶעֱבִירוּ תַעַר עַל כׇּל בְּשָׂרָם״. אֶלָּא מְצוֹרָע בְּתַעַר, מְנָלַן?
The mishna further teaches: And with regard to all of them, if they shaved with an implement other than a razor, they have done nothing. The Gemara asks: Granted, with regard to a nazirite the source of this halakha is clear, as it is written: “A razor shall not come upon his head” (Numbers 6:5), which indicates that when he does shave he must do so with a razor. And similarly, with regard to the Levites it is written: “And let them cause a razor to pass over all their flesh” (Numbers 8:7). However, from where do we derive that a leper must be shaved with a razor for his ritual purification?
וְכִי תֵימָא, תֵּיתֵי מִלְּוִיִּם: מָה לְוִיִּם שֶׁכֵּן טְעוּנִין תִּגְלַחַת, וְאֵין תִּגְלַחְתָּן אֶלָּא בְּתַעַר — אַף אֲנִי אָבִיא אֶת הַמְצוֹרָע שֶׁהוּא טָעוּן תִּגְלַחַת, וְאֵין תִּגְלַחְתּוֹ אֶלָּא בְּתַעַר. אִיכָּא לְמִיפְרַךְ: מָה לִלְוִיִּם שֶׁכֵּן טְעוּנִין תְּנוּפָה בְּגוּפָם, תֹּאמַר בִּמְצוֹרָע דְּלָא!
And if you would say that this halakha is derived from the case of the Levites, as, just as Levites require shaving and their shaving is only with a razor, so too, I will bring the case of a leper, who requires shaving and say that his shaving can likewise be performed only with a razor, then this comparison can be refuted. What is unique about Levites is that they have an extra stringency, in that they require waving of their bodies, i.e., Aaron was required to pick up and wave the bodies of the Levites as part of the ritual of their sanctification (see Numbers 8:11). Will you say the same with regard to a leper, who does not require waving?
אֶלָּא תֵּיתֵי מִנָּזִיר: מָה לְנָזִיר שֶׁכֵּן קׇרְבָּנוֹ טָעוּן לֶחֶם, תֹּאמַר בִּמְצוֹרָע דְּלָא. אֶלָּא מֵחֲדָא לָא אָתְיָא, תֵּיתֵי מִתַּרְוֵיהוֹן.
Rather, the halakha that a leper must use a razor is derived from the case of a nazirite, who does not require waving either. However, this comparison can also be refuted: What is unique about the nazirite is that his offering requires bread. Will you say the same with regard to a leper, who does not require bread as part of his purification process? Rather, clearly the halakha of a leper is not derived from either one of the above cases, that of the Levites or the nazirite. Therefore, let it be derived from the two of them.
מֵהֵי תֵּיתֵי? תֵּיתֵי מִלְּוִיִּם, מָה לִלְוִיִּם שֶׁכֵּן טְעוּנִין תְּנוּפָה בְּגוּפָן. נָזִיר יוֹכִיחַ, מָה לְנָזִיר שֶׁכֵּן קׇרְבָּנוֹ טָעוּן לֶחֶם. לְוִיִּם יוֹכִיחוּ.
The Gemara elaborates: As stated previously, from which single case can it be derived? If you say it can be derived from the Levites, what is unique about Levites is that they require waving of their bodies. This suggestion can be countered by saying that the case of a nazirite proves that this stringency is not the decisive factor leading to the requirement of a razor, as a nazirite is not waved and yet he must be shaved with a razor. And if you respond: What is unique about the nazirite is that his offering requires bread, one can similarly argue that the Levites prove that this stringency does not lead to the halakha of shaving with a razor, as the offering of the Levites does not require bread and nevertheless they must be shaved with a razor.
וְחָזַר הַדִּין, לֹא רְאִי זֶה כִּרְאִי זֶה, וְלֹא רְאִי זֶה כִּרְאִי זֶה. הַצַּד הַשָּׁוֶה שֶׁבָּהֶם שֶׁהֵן טְעוּנִין תִּגְלַחַת, וְתִגְלַחְתָּן בְּתַעַר. אַף אֲנִי אָבִיא אֶת הַמְצוֹרָע שֶׁהוּא טָעוּן תִּגְלַחַת, וְתִגְלַחְתּוֹ בְּתַעַר.
And in this manner the derivation has reverted to its starting point. However, at this stage the halakha is derived from a combination of the two sources: The aspect of this case is not like the aspect of that case, and the aspect of that is not like the aspect of this; each case has its own special features. The common denominator is that they require shaving and their shaving is with a razor. Therefore, I will also bring the case of the leper, who requires shaving, and say that his shaving must be with a razor.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא מִבַּרְנִישׁ לְרַב אָשֵׁי, וְלִיפְרוֹךְ: מָה לְהַצַּד הַשָּׁוֶה שֶׁבָּהֶן, שֶׁכֵּן
Rava of Barnish said to Rav Ashi: And let us refute this derivation in the following manner: What is the common denominator between the Levites and the nazirite? Their common denominator is that
אֵין קׇרְבָּנוֹ בְּדַלּוּת. תֹּאמַר בִּמְצוֹרָע שֶׁקׇּרְבָּנוֹ בְּדַלּוּת!
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.
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?
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?
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הָהוּא — אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבָּנַן. הָא — אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר. דִּתְנַן: וְאֵינוֹ חַיָּיב עַד שֶׁיְּלַקְּטֶנּוּ בְּתַעַר. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: אֲפִילּוּ לִיקְּטוֹ בְּמַלְקֵט וּבְרָהִיטְנֵי — חַיָּיב.
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.
מַאי טַעְמַיְיהוּ דְּרַבָּנַן? דְּתַנְיָא: ״זְקָנוֹ״ מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר? לְפִי שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״וּפְאַת זְקָנָם לֹא יְגַלֵּחוּ״, יָכוֹל אֲפִילּוּ מְצוֹרָע כֵּן — תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״זְקָנוֹ״.
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.
וּמְנָלַן דִּבְתַעַר? דְּתַנְיָא: ״וּפְאַת זְקָנָם לֹא יְגַלֵּחוּ״, יָכוֹל אֲפִילּוּ גִּילְּחוֹ בְּמִסְפָּרַיִם יְהֵא חַיָּיב, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְלֹא תַשְׁחִית״.
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.
יָכוֹל לִיקְּטוֹ בְּמַלְקֵט וּבְרָהִיטְנֵי יְהֵא חַיָּיב, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וּפְאַת זְקָנָם לֹא יְגַלֵּחוּ״. הָא כֵּיצַד? אֵיזֶהוּ גִּילּוּחַ שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ הַשְׁחָתָה — הֱוֵי אוֹמֵר: זֶה תַּעַר.
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.
מִמַּאי? דִּילְמָא לְעוֹלָם אֲפִילּוּ לִיקְּטוֹ בְּמַלְקֵט וּבְרָהִיטְנֵי נָמֵי מִצְוָה קָעָבֵיד, וְהָא קָאָתֵי לְאַשְׁמוֹעִינַן דַּאֲפִילּוּ בְּתַעַר לָא מִיחַיַּיב עֲלֵיהּ!
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.
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?
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?
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
I had tried to start after being inspired by the hadran siyum, but did not manage to stick to it. However, just before masechet taanit, our rav wrote a message to the shul WhatsApp encouraging people to start with masechet taanit, so I did! And this time, I’m hooked! I listen to the shiur every day , and am also trying to improve my skills.
Yad Binyamin, Israel
Hadran entered my life after the last Siyum Hashaas, January 2020. I was inspired and challenged simultaneously, having never thought of learning Gemara. With my family’s encouragement, I googled “daf yomi for women”. A perfecr fit!
I especially enjoy when Rabbanit Michelle connects the daf to contemporary issues to share at the shabbat table e.g: looking at the Kohen during duchaning. Toda rabba
Jerusalem, Israel
I started learning at the start of this cycle, and quickly fell in love. It has become such an important part of my day, enriching every part of my life.
Toronto, Canada
I began my journey with Rabbanit Michelle more than five years ago. My friend came up with a great idea for about 15 of us to learn the daf and one of us would summarize weekly what we learned.
It was fun but after 2-3 months people began to leave. I have continued. Since the cycle began Again I have joined the Teaneck women.. I find it most rewarding in so many ways. Thank you
New Jersey, United States
I began my journey two years ago at the beginning of this cycle of the daf yomi. It has been an incredible, challenging experience and has given me a new perspective of Torah Sh’baal Peh and the role it plays in our lives
Efrat, Israel
Studying has changed my life view on הלכה and יהדות and time. It has taught me bonudaries of the human nature and honesty of our sages in their discourse to try and build a nation of caring people .
Kfar Saba, Israel
Shortly after the death of my father, David Malik z”l, I made the commitment to Daf Yomi. While riding to Ben Gurion airport in January, Siyum HaShas was playing on the radio; that was the nudge I needed to get started. The “everyday-ness” of the Daf has been a meaningful spiritual practice, especial after COVID began & I was temporarily unable to say Kaddish at daily in-person minyanim.
Wynnewood, United States
A Gemara shiur previous to the Hadran Siyum, was the impetus to attend it.It was highly inspirational and I was smitten. The message for me was התלמוד בידינו. I had decided along with my Chahsmonaim group to to do the daf and take it one daf at time- without any expectations at all. There has been a wealth of information, insights and halachik ideas. It is truly exercise of the mind, heart & Soul
Hashmonaim, Israel
I started my Daf Yomi journey at the beginning of the COVID19 pandemic.
Los Angeles, United States
I started learning daf yomi at the beginning of this cycle. As the pandemic evolved, it’s been so helpful to me to have this discipline every morning to listen to the daf podcast after I’ve read the daf; learning about the relationships between the rabbis and the ways they were constructing our Jewish religion after the destruction of the Temple. I’m grateful to be on this journey!
Teaneck NJ, United States
I started last year after completing the Pesach Sugiyot class. Masechet Yoma might seem like a difficult set of topics, but for me made Yom Kippur and the Beit HaMikdash come alive. Liturgy I’d always had trouble connecting with took on new meaning as I gained a sense of real people moving through specific spaces in particular ways. It was the perfect introduction; I am so grateful for Hadran!
Minnesota, United States
I started learning Daf in Jan 2020 with Brachot b/c I had never seen the Jewish people united around something so positive, and I wanted to be a part of it. Also, I wanted to broaden my background in Torah Shebal Peh- Maayanot gave me a great gemara education, but I knew that I could hold a conversation in most parts of tanach but almost no TSB. I’m so thankful for Daf and have gained immensely.
NJ, United States
Richmond, CA, United States
I learned Mishnayot more than twenty years ago and started with Gemara much later in life. Although I never managed to learn Daf Yomi consistently, I am learning since some years Gemara in depth and with much joy. Since last year I am studying at the International Halakha Scholars Program at the WIHL. I often listen to Rabbanit Farbers Gemara shiurim to understand better a specific sugyiah. I am grateful for the help and inspiration!
Berlin, Germany
In early January of 2020, I learned about Siyyum HaShas and Daf Yomi via Tablet Magazine’s brief daily podcast about the Daf. I found it compelling and fascinating. Soon I discovered Hadran; since then I have learned the Daf daily with Rabbanit Michelle Cohen Farber. The Daf has permeated my every hour, and has transformed and magnified my place within the Jewish Universe.
San Francisco, CA , United States
When the new cycle began, I thought, If not now, when? I’d just turned 72. I feel like a tourist on a tour bus passing astonishing scenery each day. Rabbanit Michelle is my beloved tour guide. When the cycle ends, I’ll be 80. I pray that I’ll have strength and mind to continue the journey to glimpse a little more. My grandchildren think having a daf-learning savta is cool!
Jerusalem, Israel
It happened without intent (so am I yotzei?!) – I watched the women’s siyum live and was so moved by it that the next morning, I tuned in to Rabbanit Michelle’s shiur, and here I am, still learning every day, over 2 years later. Some days it all goes over my head, but others I grasp onto an idea or a story, and I ‘get it’ and that’s the best feeling in the world. So proud to be a Hadran learner.
Zichron Yaakov, Israel
I am grateful for the structure of the Daf Yomi. When I am freer to learn to my heart’s content, I learn other passages in addition. But even in times of difficulty, I always know that I can rely on the structure and social support of Daf Yomi learners all over the world.
I am also grateful for this forum. It is very helpful to learn with a group of enthusiastic and committed women.
Beit Shemesh, Israel
In January 2020, my chevruta suggested that we “up our game. Let’s do Daf Yomi” – and she sent me the Hadran link. I lost my job (and went freelance), there was a pandemic, and I am still opening the podcast with my breakfast coffee, or after Shabbat with popcorn. My Aramaic is improving. I will need a new bookcase, though.
Atlanta, Georgia, United States
Phoenix, Arizona, United States
Nazir 40
שֶׁאֵין דָּנִין קַל מֵחָמוּר לְהַחְמִיר עָלָיו.
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. Since the case of a leper is more stringent than that of a nazirite, as a leper must shave his entire body, one cannot derive from the halakhot of a leper that a stringent halakha applies to a nazirite. It is therefore necessary for the verse to specify that a nazirite’s final shaving must be performed with a razor.
רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ, הֲרֵי הוּא אוֹמֵר ״תַּעַר לֹא יַעֲבוֹר עַל רֹאשׁוֹ עַד מְלֹאת״, הַתּוֹרָה אָמְרָה: ״אַחַר מְלֹאת״ — לֹא תְּהֵא תִּגְלַחַת אֶלָּא בְּתַעַר.
Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says that the term “razor” itself is not necessary to teach that a nazirite’s final shaving must be performed with a razor, as the verse states: “A razor shall not come upon his head until the completion of the days that he vowed naziriteship to God” (Numbers 6:5). This full sentence indicates that the Torah said: After the completion of his term the shaving must be performed only with a razor.
וְהָכְתִיב ״תַּעַר לֹא יַעֲבוֹר עַל רֹאשׁוֹ״!
The Gemara comments: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi claims that the term “razor” indicates that shaving, in this case that of a nazirite after the completion of his term, may be performed only with a razor. If so, the verse should be understood in the same manner with regard to the prohibition of shaving. But if one examines the first part of the verse by itself, isn’t it written: “A razor shall not come upon his head” (Numbers 6:5), and the first tanna, whose opinion Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi does not dispute, derives from this verse that he is prohibited from shaving by other means as well, notwithstanding the explicit mention of a razor.
לַעֲבוֹר עָלָיו בִּשְׁנֵי לָאוִין.
The Gemara explains that the phrase “shall not come upon his head” teaches that a nazirite may not remove his hair in any manner. As for the mention of razor in this context, it serves to teach that he will violate two prohibitions for this action of using a razor, one for removing his hair and one for doing so with a razor.
אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: לִלְקוֹת — בְּאַחַת, לְעַכֵּב — בִּשְׁתַּיִם, לִסְתּוֹר — אֵינוֹ סוֹתֵר אֶלָּא בְּרוֹב רֹאשׁוֹ וּבְתַעַר.
§ Concerning a nazirite who shaves his hair, Rav Ḥisda says: With regard to flogging, a nazirite who shaved his hair is flogged for shaving even one hair; with regard to invalidation, i.e., the ritual shaving of his hair at the end of his naziriteship, the shaving is invalidated if he failed to remove two hairs; and as for negating his naziriteship, shaving during his term negates it only if he shaved most of his head. And this applies only if he removed his hair with a razor.
בְּתַעַר — אִין, בְּמִידֵּי אַחֲרִינָא — לָא? וְהָקָתָנֵי: מִנַּיִן לְרַבּוֹת אֶת כׇּל הַמַּעֲבִירִין! אֶלָּא אֵימָא: כְּעֵין תַּעַר.
The Gemara asks: This indicates that according to the opinion of Rav Ḥisda, a nazirite who shaved with a razor, yes, he negates thirty days, whereas if he did so with anything else, no, he does not negate days. But isn’t it taught: From where is it derived to include all implements that remove hair, i.e., that a nazirite is liable if he uses any of them? The verse states: “Shall not come upon his head,” meaning in any manner. This indicates that a nazirite must add days to his term of naziriteship even if he shaved with an implement other than a razor. Rather, say that Rav Ḥisda meant: In the manner of a razor. That is, the nazirite negates his naziriteship only if he removes his hair as one does with a razor, without leaving any part of it.
תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי: נָזִיר שֶׁתָּלַשׁ, מֵירַט, סִיפְסֵף כׇּל שֶׁהוּא — אֵינוֹ סוֹתֵר אֶלָּא בְּרוֹב רֹאשׁוֹ וּבְתַעַר. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: כְּשֵׁם שֶׁשְׁתֵּי שְׂעָרוֹת מְעַכְּבוֹת בּוֹ, כָּךְ שְׁתֵּי שְׂעָרוֹת סוֹתְרוֹת בּוֹ.
This opinion is also taught in a baraita (Tosefta 4:3): With regard to a nazirite who tore out, uprooted, or pulled out any amount of hair, this negates days of his naziriteship only if he shaved most of his head, and only if he did so in the manner of a razor. Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda says in the name of Rabbi Shimon: Just as leaving two hairs invalidates his shaving of ritual purity at the end of his term, and the act is considered incomplete, so too, leaving a mere two hairs negates days of his naziriteship, if he shaved during his term.
תְּנַן הָתָם: שְׁלֹשָׁה מְגַלְּחִין, וְתִגְלַחְתָּן מִצְוָה: נָזִיר, וּמְצוֹרָע, וּלְוִיִּם. וְכוּלָּן שֶׁגִּילְּחוּ שֶׁלֹּא בְּתַעַר, אוֹ שֶׁשִּׁיְּירוּ שְׁתֵּי שְׂעָרוֹת — לֹא עָשׂוּ וְלֹא כְּלוּם.
§ We learned in a mishna there (Nega’im 14:4): Three types of people must shave their hair, and their shaving is a mitzva: A nazirite; and a leper, as it is stated: “And he who is to be cleansed shall wash his clothes, and shave off all his hair” (Leviticus 14:8–9). And the third category is Levites, when they were first sanctified for their service, as it is stated: “And this you shall do to them to cleanse them: Sprinkle the water of purification upon them, and let them cause a razor to pass over all their flesh” (Numbers 8:7). 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, i.e., they have not fulfilled their obligation.
אָמַר מָר: שְׁלֹשָׁה מְגַלְּחִין וְתִגְלַחְתָּן מִצְוָה. פְּשִׁיטָא! מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא מִשּׁוּם עַבּוֹרֵי שֵׂעָר הוּא, וַאֲפִילּוּ סָךְ נָשָׁא, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן דְּלָא.
The Gemara analyzes this mishna. The Master said there: Three types of people must shave and cut their hair, and their shaving is a mitzva. The Gemara asks: This is obvious; after all, doesn’t the Torah command all three to shave? The Gemara answers: The statement of the mishna is necessary, lest you say that the mitzva is due to and aimed at the removal of hair, and therefore even one who applied a depilatory [nasha] to remove his hair has fulfilled his obligation. The mishna therefore teaches us that this is not so, as the mitzva must be performed by shaving.
קָתָנֵי: וְכוּלָּן שֶׁגִּילְּחוּ שֶׁלֹּא בְּתַעַר. בִּשְׁלָמָא גַּבֵּי נָזִיר, כְּתִיב: ״תַּעַר לֹא יַעֲבוֹר עַל רֹאשׁוֹ״. וְגַבֵּי לְוִיִּם כְּתִיב: ״וְהֶעֱבִירוּ תַעַר עַל כׇּל בְּשָׂרָם״. אֶלָּא מְצוֹרָע בְּתַעַר, מְנָלַן?
The mishna further teaches: And with regard to all of them, if they shaved with an implement other than a razor, they have done nothing. The Gemara asks: Granted, with regard to a nazirite the source of this halakha is clear, as it is written: “A razor shall not come upon his head” (Numbers 6:5), which indicates that when he does shave he must do so with a razor. And similarly, with regard to the Levites it is written: “And let them cause a razor to pass over all their flesh” (Numbers 8:7). However, from where do we derive that a leper must be shaved with a razor for his ritual purification?
וְכִי תֵימָא, תֵּיתֵי מִלְּוִיִּם: מָה לְוִיִּם שֶׁכֵּן טְעוּנִין תִּגְלַחַת, וְאֵין תִּגְלַחְתָּן אֶלָּא בְּתַעַר — אַף אֲנִי אָבִיא אֶת הַמְצוֹרָע שֶׁהוּא טָעוּן תִּגְלַחַת, וְאֵין תִּגְלַחְתּוֹ אֶלָּא בְּתַעַר. אִיכָּא לְמִיפְרַךְ: מָה לִלְוִיִּם שֶׁכֵּן טְעוּנִין תְּנוּפָה בְּגוּפָם, תֹּאמַר בִּמְצוֹרָע דְּלָא!
And if you would say that this halakha is derived from the case of the Levites, as, just as Levites require shaving and their shaving is only with a razor, so too, I will bring the case of a leper, who requires shaving and say that his shaving can likewise be performed only with a razor, then this comparison can be refuted. What is unique about Levites is that they have an extra stringency, in that they require waving of their bodies, i.e., Aaron was required to pick up and wave the bodies of the Levites as part of the ritual of their sanctification (see Numbers 8:11). Will you say the same with regard to a leper, who does not require waving?
אֶלָּא תֵּיתֵי מִנָּזִיר: מָה לְנָזִיר שֶׁכֵּן קׇרְבָּנוֹ טָעוּן לֶחֶם, תֹּאמַר בִּמְצוֹרָע דְּלָא. אֶלָּא מֵחֲדָא לָא אָתְיָא, תֵּיתֵי מִתַּרְוֵיהוֹן.
Rather, the halakha that a leper must use a razor is derived from the case of a nazirite, who does not require waving either. However, this comparison can also be refuted: What is unique about the nazirite is that his offering requires bread. Will you say the same with regard to a leper, who does not require bread as part of his purification process? Rather, clearly the halakha of a leper is not derived from either one of the above cases, that of the Levites or the nazirite. Therefore, let it be derived from the two of them.
מֵהֵי תֵּיתֵי? תֵּיתֵי מִלְּוִיִּם, מָה לִלְוִיִּם שֶׁכֵּן טְעוּנִין תְּנוּפָה בְּגוּפָן. נָזִיר יוֹכִיחַ, מָה לְנָזִיר שֶׁכֵּן קׇרְבָּנוֹ טָעוּן לֶחֶם. לְוִיִּם יוֹכִיחוּ.
The Gemara elaborates: As stated previously, from which single case can it be derived? If you say it can be derived from the Levites, what is unique about Levites is that they require waving of their bodies. This suggestion can be countered by saying that the case of a nazirite proves that this stringency is not the decisive factor leading to the requirement of a razor, as a nazirite is not waved and yet he must be shaved with a razor. And if you respond: What is unique about the nazirite is that his offering requires bread, one can similarly argue that the Levites prove that this stringency does not lead to the halakha of shaving with a razor, as the offering of the Levites does not require bread and nevertheless they must be shaved with a razor.
וְחָזַר הַדִּין, לֹא רְאִי זֶה כִּרְאִי זֶה, וְלֹא רְאִי זֶה כִּרְאִי זֶה. הַצַּד הַשָּׁוֶה שֶׁבָּהֶם שֶׁהֵן טְעוּנִין תִּגְלַחַת, וְתִגְלַחְתָּן בְּתַעַר. אַף אֲנִי אָבִיא אֶת הַמְצוֹרָע שֶׁהוּא טָעוּן תִּגְלַחַת, וְתִגְלַחְתּוֹ בְּתַעַר.
And in this manner the derivation has reverted to its starting point. However, at this stage the halakha is derived from a combination of the two sources: The aspect of this case is not like the aspect of that case, and the aspect of that is not like the aspect of this; each case has its own special features. The common denominator is that they require shaving and their shaving is with a razor. Therefore, I will also bring the case of the leper, who requires shaving, and say that his shaving must be with a razor.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא מִבַּרְנִישׁ לְרַב אָשֵׁי, וְלִיפְרוֹךְ: מָה לְהַצַּד הַשָּׁוֶה שֶׁבָּהֶן, שֶׁכֵּן
Rava of Barnish said to Rav Ashi: And let us refute this derivation in the following manner: What is the common denominator between the Levites and the nazirite? Their common denominator is that
אֵין קׇרְבָּנוֹ בְּדַלּוּת. תֹּאמַר בִּמְצוֹרָע שֶׁקׇּרְבָּנוֹ בְּדַלּוּת!
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.
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?
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?
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הָהוּא — אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבָּנַן. הָא — אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר. דִּתְנַן: וְאֵינוֹ חַיָּיב עַד שֶׁיְּלַקְּטֶנּוּ בְּתַעַר. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: אֲפִילּוּ לִיקְּטוֹ בְּמַלְקֵט וּבְרָהִיטְנֵי — חַיָּיב.
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.
מַאי טַעְמַיְיהוּ דְּרַבָּנַן? דְּתַנְיָא: ״זְקָנוֹ״ מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר? לְפִי שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״וּפְאַת זְקָנָם לֹא יְגַלֵּחוּ״, יָכוֹל אֲפִילּוּ מְצוֹרָע כֵּן — תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״זְקָנוֹ״.
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.
וּמְנָלַן דִּבְתַעַר? דְּתַנְיָא: ״וּפְאַת זְקָנָם לֹא יְגַלֵּחוּ״, יָכוֹל אֲפִילּוּ גִּילְּחוֹ בְּמִסְפָּרַיִם יְהֵא חַיָּיב, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְלֹא תַשְׁחִית״.
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.
יָכוֹל לִיקְּטוֹ בְּמַלְקֵט וּבְרָהִיטְנֵי יְהֵא חַיָּיב, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וּפְאַת זְקָנָם לֹא יְגַלֵּחוּ״. הָא כֵּיצַד? אֵיזֶהוּ גִּילּוּחַ שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ הַשְׁחָתָה — הֱוֵי אוֹמֵר: זֶה תַּעַר.
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.
מִמַּאי? דִּילְמָא לְעוֹלָם אֲפִילּוּ לִיקְּטוֹ בְּמַלְקֵט וּבְרָהִיטְנֵי נָמֵי מִצְוָה קָעָבֵיד, וְהָא קָאָתֵי לְאַשְׁמוֹעִינַן דַּאֲפִילּוּ בְּתַעַר לָא מִיחַיַּיב עֲלֵיהּ!
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.
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?
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?
