Previous daf

1)

(a) One Beraisa learns from the Pasuk "Rosho" that the Mitzvah of shaving pertaining to a Metzora overrides the La'av of "Lo Sakifu Pe'as Roshchem". We initially interpret the Chidush of the Beraisa as being - 'Hakafas Kol ha'Rosh Sh'mah Hakafah' (otherwise, the Tana would not be teaching us anything).

(b) The Tana of a second Beraisa correlates "Rosho" with the Pasuk written in connection with a Nazir "Ta'ar Lo Yavo al Rosho" - to teach us that the Mitzvah of shaving a Metzora even overrides the La'av and the Asei of Nazir.

(c) According to this explanation, this Tana disagrees with the first Tana - inasmuch as he holds 'Hakafas Kol ha'Rosh Lo Sh'mah Hakafah (in which case we do not require "Rosho" for a Metzora alone).

(a) Rava attempts to establish that both Beraisos hold 'Hakafas Kol ha'Rosh Lo Sh'mah Hakafah - and the Chidush of the first Beraisa is that the Metzora is not obligated to shave the entire head in one sitting, but may even first shave off the Pei'os and then the rest of the head.

(b) We refute Rava's explanation however, on the basis of a principle stated by Resh Lakish - that when a La'av and an Asei clash, if one is able to fulfill the Asei without transgressing the La'av, then he is obligated to do so (and it is only when he has no alternative that the Asei overrides the Lo Sa'aseh).

(c) We conclude that both Tana'im hold 'Hakafas Kol ha'Rosh Sh'mah Hakafah', and the Tana of the first Beraisa is coming to teach us that 'Asei Docheh Lo Sa'aseh' - and we know that 'Hakafas Kol ha'Rosh Sh'mah Hakafah' from a S'vara.

(d) The Tana of the second Beraisa learns that 'Asei Docheh Lo Sa'aseh' - from the juxtaposition of "Lo Silbash Sha'atnez" to "Gedilim Ta'aseh Lach" (Ki Seitzei), from which we learn that under certain circumstances, the Mitzvah of Tzitzis overrides the La'av of Sha'atnez.

(a) The Tana of the first Beraisa learns from " ... Tzemer u'Fishtim Yachdav ... Gedilim Ta'aseh Lach" - that although Tzitzis must consist of the same material as the garment for which it is made, that applies to any material other than wool or linen, which may be used to make Tzitzis for any type of garment (as Rava teaches us).

(b) Rava learns from the Pasuk " ... al Tzitzis *ha'Kanaf*" - "ha'Kanaf", 'Min ha'Kanaf' (that wool and linen Tzitzis apart, as we just explained, the Tzitzis must consist of the same material as the garment for which they are made).

(c) We ask from where the first Tana (who learns from "Rosho" that 'Asei Docheh Lo Sa'aseh') learns that 'Asei Docheh Lo Sa'aseh va'Asei (she'Eino Shaveh ba'Kol)'. What forces us to say that he does is - that otherwise, how would he know the principle 'Asei Docheh Lo Sa'aseh' (seeing as he does not learn it from Kil'ayim be'Tzitzis, as we just explained). At first glance, he cannot learn it from "Rosho" of Metzora (the current D'rashah), which is a La'av she'Eino Shaveh ba'Kol' (and from which can therefore only learn that 'Asei Docheh Lo Sa'aseh *she'Eino Shaveh ba'Kol'*). Consequently we are forced to say that he knows that already from the fact that 'Asei Docheh Lo Sa'aseh va'Asei' she'Eino Shaveh ba'Kol' (for which we are now seeking the source), in which case "Rosho" can be used ('Im Eino Inyan') to teach us 'Asei Docheh Lo Sa'aseh' Tosfos.

(a) In fact, the Tana of the first Beraisa learns 'Asei Docheh Lo Sa'aseh va'Asei she'Eino Shaveh ba'Kol' from the Pasuk "ve'Gilach es Kol Se'aro ... ve'es *Zekano*" (written in connection with Metzora) - which overrides the Asei of "Kedoshim Tihyu (in Kedoshim) and the Lo Sa'aseh of "u'Pe'as Zekanam Lo Yegaleichu" (written in Emor in connection with Kohanim).

(b) According to our supposition that the La'av of u'Pe'as Zekanam Lo Yegaleichu' overrides the Asei of "ve'Gilach ... " (of a Metzora), the only way of fulfilling the Mitzvah of "ve'Gilach es Kol Se'aro" is - when the Pei'os have fallen out by themselves.

5)

(a) We have a principle 'Ein Asei Docheh Lo Sa'aseh va'Asei'. We cannot learn from here that it is - because we are speaking specifically about a 'La'av she'Eino Shaveh ba'Kol', whilst the principle pertains specifically to a 'La'av ha'Shaveh ba'Kol'.

(b) The Tana who learns from "Zikno" that 'Asei Docheh Lo Sa'aseh va'Asei she'Eino Shaveh ba'Kol', nevertheless requires "Rosho" to teach us that the Asei of Metzora also overrides the Asei and the Lo Sa'aseh of Nazir. We cannot learn the latter from the former - because Nazir is also a 'La'av and an Asei ha'Shaveh ba'Kol' (and, as we just explained, we cannot learn it from a La'av and an Asei which are 'Eino Shaveh ba'Kol').

(c) And the Tana who learns from "Rosho" that the Asei of Metzora also overrides the Asei and the Lo Sa'aseh of Nazir - nevertheless requires the Pasuk of "Zikno" - to teach us that just as the prohibition of shaving one's beard is confined to a razor, so too, can the Mitzvah of shaving a Metzora only be performed with a razor.

(d) We learn from the two Pesukim "Lo Yegaleichu" and "ve'Lo Sashchis" (both written with regard to shaving the five corners of one's beard) - that one is only Chayav for shaving the beard in a way that constitutes both shaving and destruction (i.e. a razor) to preclude a pair of scissors (which is not considered shaving) and tweezers and a plane (according to some commentaries [which is not considered shaving]).

(a) We might have answered the previous Kashya by establishing the Tana of 'Zikno' like the Tana of the first Beraisa, who learns from "Rosho" that 'Asei Docheh Lo Sa'aseh'. We might also have refuted the Kashya (that we should learn 'Kohen' from 'Nazir') on the grounds that the La'av of Nazir has the weakness - that it can be revoked.

(b) From the Pasuk of "Zikno" we could learn that a. the 'Asei' of shaving a Metzora overrides the La'av and the Asei of Kohanim cutting their beards (which is 'Eino Shaveh ba'Kol') and b. that it overrides the La'av of Yisre'eilim cutting their beards (which is a La'av ha'Shaveh ba'Kol).

(c) 'Shekulin Hein ve'Yavo'u Sheneihen' means - that since we have a choice of learning one of two things from a Pasuk, and we have no reason to learn one more than the other, we learn both.

(d) We are trying to prove from this principle that the Pasuk "Rosho" is not necessary (to teach us 'Asei Docheh Lo Sa'aseh, since we can learn it from "Zikno".

(a) We prefer to learn that an Asei overrides both a La'av and a La'av and an Asei from "Zikno", rather than from "Rosho" (from which we could also learn both, as we saw at the beginning of the Sugya) - because the La'av (of "ve'Lo Sashchis") pertaining to Kohanim is the same as that pertaining to Yisre'eilim, whereas the La'av of Hakafah ("Lo Sakifu") and that of Nazir ("Ta'ar Lo Ya'avor al Rosho") are two separate La'avin (Tosfos).

(b) By the same token, it is clear that "Rosho" incorporates a S'tam Metzora (to teach us that 'Asei Docheh Lo sSa'aseh, even when it Shaveh ba'Kol, as we explained earlier) and a Metzora who is a Nazir (to teach us 'Asei Docheh La'av va'Asei she'Eino Shaveh ba'Kol) as Tosfos extrapolates from the insertion of Nazir in our Sugya. Nevertheless, we cannot learn ...

1. ... Kohen from Nazir ("Rosho") - because the latter La'av can be revoked by a Chacham, whereas the former cannot.
2. ... Nazir from Kohen - because the latter La'av (that of cutting the beard) is not equal to everyone (i.e. since it does not pertain to women), whether the former is.
3. ... Asei Docheh Lo Sa'aseh va'Asei from either of these two - because either La'av has a weakness, as we just explained.

(c) Nor can we even learn all other cases from a 'Mah ha'Tzad' (a combination of the two) - because the Asei of Metzora (which overrides them) is different than other Asei, inasmuch as it leads to Shalom Bayis, which other Asei do not (Tosfos).

(a) When Rav permits shaving his body-hair with a razor, he is referring to the La'av of "Lo Yilbash Gever Simlas Ishah".

(b) To reconcile Rav with the Tana of a Beraisa (who prohibits the removal of the underarm hair and that of the Beis ha'Ervah, we differentiate between shaving it with a razor and using scissors. When he referred to a 'razor' - what he really meant was shaving it with scissors (that remove the hair completely, like a razor).

(c) According to others [the Ba'al halachos Gedolos and the Rif], we differentiate between other body-hair and underarm hair on the one hand, and underarm hair and that of the Beis ha'Ervah, on the other. To reconcile Rav with the Beraisa which forbids even other body-hair - we establish his statement by scissors, whereas the Beraisa speaks by a razor.

(a) Tosfos, on the following Amud, will cite two readings of this text. According to one way of reading it, after differentiating between the general body-hair, and the underarm hair and that of the Beis ha'Ervah, and asking from the Beraisa which presents shaving (unspecified) body-hair as being de'Rabbanan, concludes '*Ela* Ki Ka'amar Rav be'Misparayim', ve'Chi Tanya ha'Hi, be'Misparayim'. The significance of 'Ela" is - that it implies that he is referring to underarm hair and that of the Beis ha'Ervah, to permit shaving *all* body-hair with scissors.

(b) Without 'Ela', it would imply that the concession of using scissors is confined to other body-hair, but not to underarm hair and that of the Beis ha'Ervah (though Tosfos themselves, are not sure that 'Ela" is implied even if it is not written).

(a) Rebbi Chiya bar Aba Amar Rebbi Yochanan sentences anyone who shaves the underarm hair or that of the Beis ha'Ervah to Malkos. We resolve this with the Tana of a Beraisa, which states that he only receives Malkos de'Rabbanan - by explaining Rebbi Yochanan too, to mean Malkos mi'de'Rabbanan.

(b) Rebbi Yochanan disagrees with Rav - inasmuch as he prohibits using even scissors (whereas Rav does not, according to our text, as we just learned) Tosfos.