Nazir Daf 58 - Asei Docheh Lo Sa'asei
Summary
- This shiur explains why the Torah adds the word ראשו in the פרשת תגלחת של a *metzora*, explores whether that teaches עשה דוחה לא תעשה for cutting the *pe’ot*, and analyzes two ברייתות that derive either the basic rule of עשה דוחה לא תעשה or even the case of overriding a לא תעשה ve’aseh for a *nazir–metzora*. It presents alternative frameworks for the dispute beyond whether *hakafas kol ha-rosh* is שמה הקפה, develops the rule of Rish Lakish that one must fulfill both obligations when possible, and weighs whether that rule is דאורייתא or דרבנן. It then develops the competing source from שעטנז and *tzitzit*, reconciles מן הכנף with the סמיכות to שעטנז, and notes halachic implications for non-wool garments. It shows how זקנו establishes that a *metzora*’s shaving must be בתער by defining the beard prohibition as “השחתה via גילוח,” and explains why both ראשו and זקנו are necessary given the special features of *nazir* (ישנו בשאלה) and כהן (לאו שאינו שוה בכל). It also records Rishonim’s reasons for why עשה דוחה לא תעשה, addresses the *be’idna* problem and the role of the *makif*, and notes the forthcoming discussion of לא ילבש גבר שמלת אשה regarding shaving body hair.
- The ברייתא reads והיה ביום השביעי יגלח את כל שערו … את ראשו ואת זקנו ואת גבות עיניו ואת כל שערו יגלח and asks why the Torah specifies ראשו when כל שערו already includes it. The ברייתא answers that without ראשו one might have thought the *metzora* leaves his *pe’ot* intact due to the לאו of “lo tekifu pe’at roshechem,” therefore ראשו teaches that the עשה of יגלח את כל שערו overrides that לאו, forming a basis for עשה דוחה לא תעשה. Rishonim frame the initial *hava amina* variously: Rosh and Meiri assume the *pe’ot* would be left unshorn, שיטה לחכמי איוורא suggests the verse speaks only when the *pe’ot* fell out naturally before shaving, and Tosafot (Nazir 57b) read it as needing an explicit exception for a *metzora*.
- Rambam in פירוש המשניות to מסכת נגעים is uncertain whether טהרת *metzora* applies בזמן הזה without קרבנות, raising whether עשה דוחה לא תעשה remains operative when only partial fulfillment is possible. Rambam in משנה תורה (הל’ צרעת יא:ו) rules that טהרת *metzora* applies בפני הבית ושלא בפני הבית, while כלי חמדה (כי תצא) argues this does not resolve the broader principle because what remains of the מצוה may define the מצוה בשלימות in this context. אור שמח writes that practically בזמן הזה it does not apply due to lack of כהן מיוחס and other prerequisites.
- Rav Nissim Gaon (Shabbat 133a) holds a לאו is more severe, but is issued with a built-in תנאי that it yields when it conflicts with an עשה. Ramban (to the Torah) holds the עונש of a לאו is harsher, yet the קיום of an עשה is more elevated because it is rooted in אהבת השם, whereas a לא תעשה is rooted in יראת השם. A difficulty arises because the *metzora* completes his מצוה only after finishing the entire shaving, while the לאו of *pe’ot* is violated as soon as one *pe’ah* is removed, seemingly failing the *be’idna* requirement (Shabbat 132). Aruch LaNer (Yevamot 5) answers either by positing a case with one remaining *pe’ah* left for last, or by viewing the continuous, uninterrupted act of shaving as one extended performance counted as *be’idna*; Minchas Chinuch (מצוה רנא אות יב) adds that when it is objectively impossible to do it *be’idna*, the עשה still overrides.
- The problem of the barber arises because both אחד המקיף ואחד הניקף are prohibited regarding *pe’ot*, while the מצוה devolves only on the *metzora*. Tosafot (Gittin 41; Bava Batra) hold that one person’s עשה does not override another person’s לאו, analogized to פרו ורבו where the woman’s lack of חיוב blocks using his עשה to override her לאו. אמרי משה suggests that איסור *makif* is functionally dependent on the חיוב of the *nikaif*; when the *nikaif* is completely מופקע from the איסור for the sake of the עשה, the *makif* likewise has no standing איסור in that case.
- A second ברייתא uses ראשו to teach that a *metzora* who is also a *nazir* must shave despite תער לא יעבור על ראשו and the positive חיוב of גדל פרע שער ראשו, establishing that the *metzora*’s עשה overrides a לא תעשה ve’aseh. The timing challenge recurs, since the *nazir* incurs liability with a single hair while the *metzora*’s fulfillment culminates at the end, and the אחרונים grapple with this as above.
- The Gemara first suggests that the dispute tracks whether *hakafas kol ha-rosh* שמה הקפה, making ראשו either permit an act that would otherwise be a לאו or, if it is לא שמה הקפה, free ראשו to teach the stronger case of overriding a לא תעשה ve’aseh. Rava offers that both could hold לא שמה הקפה and read ראשו to allow even “שהקיף ולבסוף גילח,” but the Gemara rejects authorizing a needlessly prohibited sequence based on Reish Lakish’s rule: when an עשה encounters a לא תעשה, אם אתה יכול לקיים את שניהם מוטב, ואם לאו יבוא עשה וידחה לא תעשה. Melo HaRo’im infers from Tosafot (Pesachim) that this constraint may be only דרבנן, while Beit Yosef (OC 11) reads our sugya as indicating a דין דאורייתא.
- One תנא derives basic עשה דוחה לא תעשה from the סמיכות of לא תלבש שעטנז to גדילים תעשה לך על ארבע כנפות כסותך, while reserving ראשו for the stronger case of לא תעשה ve’aseh. Rava reconciles ונתנו על ציצית הכנף, teaching “מן הכנף,” with the סמיכות to “לא תלבש שעטנז …,” teaching the superiority of wool/linen strings, by ruling that צמר ופשתים strings exempt any garment בין במינן בין שלא במינן, whereas other fibers work only במינן. This derashah implies, as Beit Yosef notes, a דאורייתא חיוב on non-wool/linen garments according to Ashkenazic psak (Rema), whereas Mechaber holds they are only דרבנן; some therefore prefer wool *tzitzit*, though the Gra and Rav Chaim Kanievsky reportedly wore cotton טלית קטן alongside a wool טלית.
- The תנא who uses ראשו for the basic rule learns the stronger case from זקנו: ופאת זקנם לא יגלחו with קדושים יהיו would have barred a כהן *metzora* from shaving, and זקנו teaches that the *metzora*’s עשה overrides that לא תעשה ve’aseh. The same ברייתא establishes that the beard prohibition is defined as השחתה by a מעשה גילוח, excluding scissors (not משחית) and tweezers/planes (משחית but not גילוח), yielding that only תער is assur, and thus only תער can fulfill the *metzora*’s mandated גילוח. Since fulfilling the *metzora*’s shaving with scissors would allow קיום שניהם, the fact that זקנו authorizes דחייה proves that תגלחת *metzora* is דוקא בתער.
- The sugya requires both words because Kohen-based derivation is limited by שכן לאו שאינו שוה בכל, while *nazir*-based derivation is limited by שכן ישנו בשאלה. The general rule remains that we do not learn a global license of עשה overriding a לא תעשה ve’aseh from these cases, since each carries a specific leniency that precludes forming a universal בנין אב.
- The Gemara then begins a new inquiry at the end of the amud regarding לא ילבש גבר שמלת אשה as it pertains to removing body hair in the context of תגלחת *metzora*. The analysis aims to determine whether such shaving constitutes a prohibited feminine practice or remains permitted within the parameters established by the *metzora*’s mitzvah.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions