Nazir Daf 59 - Lo Yilbash
Summary
- The shiur opens on Nazir 58b with dedications and sets the agenda: a sustained analysis of the prohibition of *lo yilbash* as applied to male grooming (especially removing hair from the armpits and pubic area), distinctions between using a razor and scissors, the role of local custom, definitions of “*misparayim ke-ein ta’ar*,” alternative hair-removal methods, the status of the prohibition as *de’oraita* or *derabbanan* with attendant punishments, reasons for the prohibition, and applications such as women bearing weapons under “לא יהיה כלי גבר על אשה.” It then treats exceptions for a Nazir or for medical need, reports practical anecdotes and rulings, and proceeds on 59a–b to the Mishnah continuing the case of two Nezirim with uncertain *tumah* when one dies, presenting Rabbi Yehoshua’s conditional-partner solution, Ben Zoma’s objection and alternative, the question of bringing offerings in parts, the acceptance of Ben Zoma’s plan, a note that Rabbi Yehoshua’s suggestion was to sharpen students, and a light logistical aside.
- The shiur is on Nazir daf נ״ט, beginning from the two dots near the end of נ״ח עמוד ב׳. The shiur is sponsored by Dr. David Lander in honor of his wife and children and לעילוי נשמת his mother Golda בת שמחה עליה השלום; by the Gross family לזכר נשמת חנה לאה בת משה צבי, רב משה יהודה בן רב נחום, חיה לאה בת נפתלי הרצקא, and צבי מנחם בן שמיה; and by Chaim and Rachel Weinstein לעילוי נשמת their mothers לאה בת זלג עליה השלום and פייגא לאה בת אברהם חיים עליה השלום, with special mention of לאה בת whose יארצייט is today and of פייגא לאה בת הרב אברהם יעקב who survived Ravensbrück and later taught תנ״ך.
- The pasuk “ולא ילבש גבר שמלת אשה” is applied beyond clothing to feminine activities. Rav states that a man may remove body hair even of the *beit ha-shachi* and *beit ha-ervah* with a razor, excluding the head and beard because of “לא תקיף ולא תשחית.” A baraita stating that one who removes *beit ha-shachi* and *beit ha-ervah* hair is liable is reconciled by distinguishing between a razor and *misparayim*, with the liability applying to razor use but not to *misparayim*. The Gemara clarifies that Rav’s “razor” means “*misparayim ke-ein ta’ar*,” a very close cut by scissors rather than an actual razor.
- Otzar ha-Geonim cites Rav Sherira Gaon and Rav Hai Gaon that the scope of *lo yilbash* depends on local male practice, varying by place and time (כל מקום לפי המקום ולפי הזמן). An activity done by men in a locale is not *lo yilbash* there even if elsewhere it would be, and if men typically do not do it, it is prohibited as *lo yilbash*.
- Kerem Ora cites the Rambam (Hilchot Nezirut 5:11) that leaving enough hair to “לחופ את ראשו אל עיקרו” is not *ke-ein ta’ar*, whereas shorter is. Tosafot (40b) implies that if any hair remains it is not *ke-ein ta’ar*, and only total removal counts as *ke-ein ta’ar*. The debate whether the criterion is closeness of cut or cutting mechanism yields practical ramifications for electric shavers, especially “lift-and-cut,” depending on whether closeness or scissor-like action defines permissibility.
- Shitah Mekubetzet quoting Rabbeinu Azriel infers that using a *melaket* or *rahitni* (e.g., tweezers) may be prohibited as *lo yilbash* despite differing methods, because the result mimics or exceeds razor removal. The implication is that permissibility hinges on both method and social practice.
- Rabbi Yohanan is cited that one who removes *beit ha-shachi* and *beit ha-ervah* hair is “*lokeh*,” which the Gemara initially aligns with a *de’oraita* prohibition but resolves in one version as *makat mardut* *derabbanan*. In another version, Rabbi Yohanan explicitly ties liability to “לא ילבש גבר שמלת אשה,” and a supporting baraita states that such removal violates that pasuk, while another baraita says it is only *derabbanan*; the Gemara assigns Rabbi Yohanan to the view holding it *de’oraita*. Sefer Mitzvot Gadol rules that one who removes *beit ha-shachi* and *beit ha-ervah* is liable *de’oraita*, whereas Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah siman 182), as explained by Kesef Mishneh within the Rambam in Hilchot Avodat Kochavim, rules it is *derabbanan*.
- The Rambam (Sefer HaMitzvot, lo ta’aseh 40) writes that such actions sometimes arouse lust (“לעורר הטבע לזימה”). Sefer HaChinuch writes that the reason is to prevent excessive mingling of genders. The practical difference noted is that even partial cross-gender attire blurs gender lines (per the Rambam’s concern for זנות), whereas the mingling concern might be less implicated if the person remains visibly male and not entering women’s spaces.
- A baraita expounds that “לא יהיה כלי גבר על אשה” is not merely banning cross-dressing, since the pasuk calls the act “תועבה,” and simple clothing alone is not *to’eva*, so the prohibition targets cross-dressing to enter and sit among the other gender. Rabbi Elazar ben Yaakov derives that a woman may not go out with war weapons from “לא יהיה כלי גבר על אשה” because “דרכו של איש לעשות מלחמה ואין דרכה של אשה לעשות מלחמה.” The statement that in a מלחמת מצוה “אפילו כלה יוצאת מחופתה” is addressed by Ben Yehoyada, who limits the role to non-combat support rather than combat.
- The commentators state that because of “לא יהיה כלי גבר,” Yael did not use a sword to kill Sisera but used a tent peg instead. Although need can permit a woman to wear men’s garments (e.g., for rain or cold), Maharsham (II, siman רמג) limits the heter to cases without an available alternative; if a women’s coat is available, she must use it despite the need.
- Rabbi Elazar ben Yaakov also expounds from “ולא ילבש גבר שמלת אשה” that a man may not adorn himself with women’s beautifications, such as eye cosmetics (*kohol*), hair arrangements (*pirqus*), and depilation for beauty.
- Rav Nachman states that a Nazir who will shave his head at the conclusion of Nezirut, a state of *genai*, may remove *beit ha-shachi* and *beit ha-ervah* hair with a *ta’ar* since he is not acting for beauty. Tosafot (Yevamot 48) report a Teshuvat HaGeonim permitting removal when shaving the entire body from head to toe for medical purposes, describing it as *niyul* rather than beautification, and Karban Aharon infers the need for both factors (refuah and whole-body). The Rashba permits removal for refuah when the hair causes *tza’ar* and removing it hastens healing, and Beit Yosef reconciles Tosafot and Rashba by differentiating cases of direct *tza’ar* from general therapeutic benefit; nevertheless, the Gemara concludes “ולא פסקינן כוותיה,” and it remains prohibited for a Nazir just as for others absent refuah need.
- Students reported that Rabbi Yohanan had no *beit ha-shachi* hair, and Rabbi Shimon bar Aba answered that age caused the hair to fall out, which Tosafot use to show that even with *misparayim* there is at least an *issur derabbanan*, while the Rosh answers they observed total removal not achievable by *misparayim*. In Rabbi Ami’s court, a litigant with visible unshaven *beit ha-shachi* hair was spared *makat mardut* as “דין מן חברייא,” implying that shaving there signaled non-scholarly behavior. Rav asked Rabbi Chiya whether shaving due to anticipated *tza’ar* is permitted, and he answered it is prohibited because such hair reaches a point where it naturally falls out. Rav asked about rubbing to remove hair: using fingernails is prohibited, while using a garment is permitted; another version applies the rubbing question to prayer hygiene, where the halacha does not follow Rabbi Chiya and allows rubbing via a barrier garment to avoid dirtying hands, with a contemporary note that frequent bathing may further mitigate concerns.
- The Mishnah continues the earlier case of two Nezirim where one became *tamei* but it is unknown who, and now one died, creating a problem because the survivor cannot bring all necessary offerings due to *chullin ba’azarah*. Rabbi Yehoshua instructs the survivor to recruit another person to accept a conditional Nezirut spanning 60 days such that 30 days will be effective and 30 ineffective, and to bring after 30 days both the *korban tumah* (without the *asham*) and the *korban taharah* in partnership, calibrating ownership by conditions. After another 30 days they bring another *korban taharah*, again assigning it conditionally so that each period and set of offerings covers the possible statuses.
- Ben Zoma objects that no volunteer will accept a half-meaningless double Nezirut, and he proposes that the survivor alone bring after 30 days a *chatat ha’of* and an *olat behemah* with a condition that if he was *tamei* the *chatat* counts and the *olah* is *nedavah*, and if he was *tahor* the *olah* counts and the *chatat ha’of* is due to *safek*. He then counts another 30 days and brings a full *korban taharah*, declaring retroactively which *olah* was *chovah* and which *nedavah* depending on his initial status, with the remaining *chatat* and *shelamim* fulfilling his obligations. Rabbi Yehoshua challenges that on the possibility he was *tahor*, he is bringing his offerings in parts, but the Chachamim concede to Ben Zoma that bringing them in parts is acceptable here.
- Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel that Rabbi Yehoshua offered the conditional-partner plan “לחדד בהן את התלמידים,” i.e., as a pedagogic prompt that elicited Ben Zoma’s solution. Rav Nachman raises a jocular concern about the intestines of offerings spoiling during the conditional processes, and the Meiri labels this an aside said with wit that would be addressed in practice.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions