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". How do we then interpret the Chidush of the Beraisa?

(b) How does the Tana of the second Beraisa correlate "Rosho" with the Pasuk written in connection with a Nazir "Ta'ar Lo Yavo al Rosho"? What will then be the Chidush?

(c) According to this explanation, in which point does this Tana disagree with the first Tana?

(a) Rava attempts to establish that both Beraisos hold 'Hakafas Kol ha'Rosh Lo Sh'mah Hakafah.
In that case, what is the Chidush of the first Beraisa?

(b) We refute Rava's explanation however, on the basis of a principle stated by Resh Lakish.
Which principle?

(c) We conclude that both Tana'im hold 'Hakafas Kol ha'Rosh Sh'mah Hakafah', and the Tana of the first Beraisa is teaching us that 'Asei Docheh Lo Sa'aseh'.
From where do we then know that 'Hakafas Kol ha'Rosh Sh'mah Hakafah'?

(d) From where does the Tana of the second Beraisa then learn that 'Asei Docheh Lo Sa'aseh'?

(a) What does the Tana of the first Beraisa learn from " ... Tzemer u'Fishtim Yachdav ... Gedilim Ta'aseh Lach"?

(b) And what does Rava learn from the Pasuk " ... al Tzitzis *ha'Kanaf*"?

(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 holds this at all? Maybe he holds 'Ein Asei Docheh Lo Sa'aseh va'Asei' (under any circumstances)?

(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 Asei and Lo'Sa'aseh does this Asei override?

(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), how will one ever fulfill the Mitzvah of "ve'Gilach es Kol Se'aro"?

5)

(a) We have a principle 'Ein Asei Docheh Lo Sa'aseh va'Asei'.
Why can we not learn from here that it is?

(b) Why does the Tana who learns from "Zekano" that 'Asei Docheh Lo Sa'aseh va'Asei she'Eino Shaveh ba'Kol', require "Rosho" to teach us that the Asei of Metzora also overrides the Asei and the Lo'Sa'aseh of Nazir? Why can we not learn the latter from the former?

(c) And why does the Tana who learns from "Rosho" that the Asei of Metzora also overrides the Asei and the Lo Sa'aseh of Nazir require the Pasuk of "Zekano"?

(d) What do we learn from the two Pesukim "Lo Yegaleichu" (Emor) and "ve'Lo Sashchis" (in Kedoshim [both written with regard to shaving the five corners of one's beard])?

(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'.
On what other grounds might we have refuted the Kashya (that we should learn 'Kohen' from 'Nazir') What weakness does the La'av of Nazir have over that of Kohen?

(b) Which two things could we learn from the Pasuk of "Zikno"?

(c) What does 'Shekulin Hein ve'Yavo'u Sheneihen' mean?

(d) What are we trying to prove from this principle?

(a) Why do 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)?

(b) By the same token, it is clear that "Rosho" incorporates a S'tam Metzora (to teach us that 'Asei Docheh Lo Sa'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.
In that case, why can we not learn ...

1. ... Kohen from Nazir ("Rosho")?
2. ... Nazir from Kohen?
3. ... Asei Docheh Lo Sa'aseh va'Asei from either of these two?

(c) Then why can we not learn all other cases from a 'Mah ha'Tzad' (a combination of the two)?

(a) To which La'av is Rav referring when he permits shaving his body -hair with a razor?

(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.
But did Rav not specifically refer to a 'razor'?

(c) According to others, we differentiate between other body-hair on the one hand, and underarm hair and that of the Beis ha'Ervah, on the other.
How do we thesn reconcile Rav with the Beraisa which forbids even other body-hair?

(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'.
What is the significance of 'Ela"?

(b) What would be the difference if the word 'Ela' was omitted?

(a) Rebbi Chiya bar Aba Amar Rebbi Yochanan sentences anyone who shaves the underarm hair or that of the Beis ha'Ervah to Malkos.
How do we resolve this with the Tana of a Beraisa, which states that he only receives Malkos de'Rabbanan?

(b) In which point does Rebbi Yochanan then disagree with Rav?

Next daf