Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Nazir, 40

40b

QUESTION: The Gemara explains that according to the Rabanan (who argue with Rebbi Eliezer) the Halachah that the Gilu'ach of Metzora must be done with a Ta'ar (razor) is derived from the phrase "Zekano" in the verse (Vayikra 14:9) which teaches that a Metzora Kohen must shave off all of his hair like a normal Metzora. A Kohen is normally prohibited by a Lav from shaving his head with a Ta'ar. The fact that a verse is needed to teach that he may shave when he is a Metzora indicates that the Metzora is obligated to shave with a Ta'ar, because if a Metzora could shave with any other instrument, it would not be necessary to teach that a Metzora Kohen is permitted to shave (let him shave with the other instrument and not with a Ta'ar).

The Gemara asks that perhaps a Metzora could even remove his hair with a Melaket or Rehitni if he wants, and the term "Zekano" is teaching that if a Metzora Kohen wants to use a Ta'ar, he is permitted (but not required) to do so.

The Gemara rejects this suggestion and says that the Torah would not permit a Metzora Kohen to use a Ta'ar if there is any other option with which to fulfill his Mitzvah of Gilu'ach.

REBBI AKIVA EIGER (in Gilyon ha'Shas) asks a strong question on the Gemara's question. How could the Gemara suggest that a Metzora could use a Melaket or Rehitni? In the Beraisa earlier, the Rabanan teach that the phrase "v'Lo Sashchis" (Vayikra 19:27), written with regard to destroying the hair of the "Pe'os" of one's beard, excludes scissors, because scissors do not cut the hair from its root at the skin ("Hashchasah"), while the word "Yegalechu" (Vayikra 21:5), written with regard to the specific prohibition of a Kohen from shaving the "Pe'os" of his beard, excludes Melaket and Rehitni, because those items are not "Derech Gilu'ach" -- they are not normally used for shaving (TOSFOS DH Iy Lo). Since this Gemara, which is discussing Metzora, is explaining the opinion of the Rabanan, and the verse says that a Metzora must shave his hair, it should be obvious that a Metzora cannot use a Melaket or Rehitni for his shave! The Gemara should have asked that perhaps a Metzora may use *scissors* for his shave, since the verse describing a Metzora does not say that a Metzora must do "Hashchasah" to his hair. But a Melaket and Rehitni certainly may not be used! Rebbi Akiva Eiger adds that Tosfos says this explicitly in Shevuos (2b), where he writes that no verse is necessary to teach that a Melaket and Rehitni cannot be used according to the Rabanan, since they hold that the word "v'Gilach" excludes a Melaket and Rehitni. Only according to Rebbi Eliezer, who holds that Melaket and Rehitni *are* a valid form of Gilu'ach when it comes to the Isur of shaving the beard, would need a verse to teach that a Metzora may not use a Melaket and Rehitni!

ANSWERS: The simple suggestion would be that the words "Melaket and Rehitni" here (40b) are Lav Davka, and the Gemara really means to ask that perhaps the Rabanan permit Gilu'ach with *scissors*. The reason the Gemara mentions "Melaket and Rehitni" here is because it uses that wording later (41a) when it asks the same question on Rebbi Eliezer, who considers Gilu'ach with a Melaket and Rehitni to be a valid Gilu'ach. This might be the intention of Tosfos in Shevuos. However, Tosfos in our Sugya clearly does not take this approach. TOSFOS (DH Ha Keitzad and 41a, DH v'Su) makes no comments on the words "Melaket and Rehitni" and even adds explicitly that the Gemara is referring to Gilu'ach "with Melaket, Rehitni, *or* scissors," implying that even the Rabanan consider Gilu'ach with a Melaket and Rehitni to be a valid Gilu'ach! How will Tosfos in our Sugya answer Rebbi Akiva Eiger's question?

(a) The KEREN ORAH explains that perhaps the Isur of shaving could include either Gilu'ach with a Ta'ar or with a Melaket or Rehitni according to the Rabanan. But shaving with a Melaket or Rehitni is a lesser form of Gilu'ach. Hence, when the Torah prohibits Gilu'ach, we cannot be certain whether the Torah intends also to prohibit the lesser form of Gilu'ach of Melaket and Rehitni, or to prohibit only the main form of Gilu'ach (with a Ta'ar). Consequently, we may only hold the person liable for transgressing when he does an act that the Torah certainly intends to include in the prohibition -- and thus only Gilu'ach with a Ta'ar is prohibited. In contrast, when the Torah gives a Mitzvas Aseh of Gilu'ach (in the case of a Metzora), again we are uncertain whether the Torah intends to include even the lesser form of Gilu'ach in the Mitzvah or only the main form of Gilu'ach. Hence, we can only obligate the Metzora to shave with a certain instrument if we know for certain that the verse requires obligates him to shave with it. Consequently, we may not assume that he is obligated by the Torah to shave with only a Ta'ar, and we must permit him to be shave even with a Melaket or Rehitni. (This approach is somewhat difficult to understand, because it seems to be assuming that a Melaket and a Rehitni have the status of a Safek Ta'ar. The Safek, though, would not be the Torah's doubt, but only our doubt. The Torah certainly has a definite intention with regard to with what it prohibits shaving the beard; it is *we* who just do not know what the Torah's intention is. How, then, can we say that the Limud from Metzora Kohen might be allowing the use of a Melaket and Rehitni because *we* are not sure of the status of those instruments? How can we say that the meaning of the verse is based on *our* Safek?)

(b) Perhaps Tosfos in our Sugya learns that the word "v'Gilach" (Vayikra 14:8), in the Mitzvah of a Metzora to shave his hair, includes even a Melaket and Rehitni, like the words of the Gemara imply. When the Beraisa earlier says that according to the Rabanan the word "Yegalechu" is excluding a Melaket and Rehitni, it is learning it from the change in the wording of the verses, from the fact that the Torah changed the wording from "Lo Sashchis" (Vayikra 19:27) to "Lo Yegalechu" (Vayikra 21:5). If the Torah wanted to prohibit shaving with a Melaket and Rehitni, it would have written "Lo *Sashchis*" like it writes with regard to the prohibition of Yisraelim shaving their beards. By changing the wording it must be teaching that not only is the prohibition transgressed only with Gilu'ach, but it is transgressed only with an act that is "k'Derech Gilu'ach," the normal manner of shaving (excluding Melaket and Rehitni). Accordingly, the verse regarding Metzora which uses only one word "v'Gilach" -- and makes no change in wording at any point -- might be including Melaket and Rehitni as well.

According to this, how does Tosfos (beginning of 41a, and 41b DH Hashta) prove that the Isur of Hakafas ha'Rosh applies even with scissors since the Rabanan do not learn that a Metzora needs to use a Ta'ar from the phrase of "Rosho" in the verse of Metzora (Vayikra 14:9) which teaches that a Metzora may be shave his entire head (even though it involves Hakafas ha'Rosh)? Perhaps a Metzora may *not* use scissors to do Hakafas ha'Rosh, but he *may* use a Melaket and Rehitni! Consequently, "Rosho" does not teach that a Metzora may not use a *Melaket or Rehitni*, and thus we need "Zekano" to teach that he cannot use them! (See Tosfos in Shevuos 2b.)

The answer is that Tosfos in our Sugya apparently learns that if Hakafas ha'Rosh may not be done with a Melaket or Rehitni, then there is no logic to distinguish between a Melaket or Rehitni and scissors, since it does not say the word "v'Gilach" in the verse regarding Hakafas ha'Rosh. Therefore, if the verse prohibits Hakafas ha'Rosh with a Melaket or Rehitni, it would also prohibit Hakafas ha'Rosh with scissors. (See GILYON HA'SHAS in Shevuos 2b, and Insights to Nazir 41b.)