Previous daf

1)

(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 Pasuk ...

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).
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.

(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" appear redundant.

(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.
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".

(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).

4)

(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.
2. ... Nazir - because the Isur can be revoked.

(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 Nezirin') Tosfos.