Explanation: [Rebbi holds that we do not need] "Ta'ar" to teach about the final shaving of a Nazir, for even if we would need it for itself [to forbid shaving with a razor during Nezirus], automatically we would know that the final shaving is with a razor

Rebbi argues with his first Tana as follows. The first Tana brings Ta'ar for the final shaving.

We ask that "Ta'ar Lo Ya'avor" connotes also other matters that remove. How can Rebbi say that we need it for the simple meaning, that one is liable only through a razor?

Implied question: Why doesn't the Gemara say that Rebbi holds like R. Yonason, who does not forbid other matters that remove?

Answer: Since he said "it is not needed", this connotes that he does not come to argue with his first Tana who forbids all matters that remove.

Explanation (cont.): We answer that it teaches a second Lav. The Torah wrote Ta'ar to teach that one who shaves with a razor transgresses two Lavim - for a razor, and for other matters that remove;

The Lav applies to a razor, and also to other matters that remove. It is as if it wrote "Ta'ar Lo Ya'avor v'Lo Ya'avor." The expression ["Lo Ya'avor"] applies to what is before it (Ta'ar) and after it ("Al Rosho");

Now, we learn both of them (Tiglachas Mitzvah and an extra Lav) from Ta'ar according to Rebbi;

Had the Torah written Ta'ar only for Tiglachas Mitzvah, like the first Tana says, if so, it should have written Ta'ar explicitly regarding Tiglachas Mitzvah. Why was it written regarding Isur? This teaches that he is lashed twice.

If it came only for this (that he is lashed twice), why was "Ad Melos" written next to "Ta'ar Lo Ya'avor"? Rather, it teaches that until Melos (the end of Nezirus), a razor will not pass. However, after Melos, only a razor will remove his hair.

Explanation: This refers to the Reisha [of Rav Chisda's teaching]. He is lashed only [for shaving] with a razor;

However, he is Soser even when it is not like a razor. Rather, on the majority of his head he is Soser when he did not leave enough to bend, even though it is not like [one shaved] with a razor.

We ask "is he is lashed for a razor, but not for other matters that remove? The Mishnah teaches that a Nazir who shaved, whether with a razor, or with scissors, or through rubbing any amount, he is liable!

[We answer] rather, [he means] like a razor. He uproots the hair and destroys it from its source.

Explanation: This is an ointment that makes hair fall out.

Question: We learn this explicitly from the Seifa! The Seifa teaches that if any of them shaved without a razor, he did nothing!

Answer: We must say that if we had only the Seifa, one might have thought that "without a razor" means unlike a razor, [however, he is Yotzei any way that removes like a razor], and even if he anointed with Nasha.

Explanation: Rather, his Korban (a Nazir (Tahor), or a Levi) is fixed, whether he is rich or poor. You cannot learn to a Metzora, for if he is poor, he brings birds. If so, we cannot be stringent to obligate him to shave with a razor!

Note: We cannot learn from a Nazir Tamei, who shaves with a razor even though he brings birds, for also his Korban is fixed, whether he is rich or poor.

Question: We conclude that we learn Metzora from another verse, and not from Nazir, i.e. from "Zekano", below. We should learn Nazir from a Tzad ha'Shavah [from Leviyim and Metzora. Why did we need to learn from "Ta'ar Lo Ya'avor"?]

Answer: We could challenge and say that we cannot learn from the Tzad ha'Shavah. The sources cannot be undone through She'elah [like Nezirus can], or that they need to shave the entire body.

Explanation: In the Beraisa above (Sof 39b), [the Tana] said that we cannot learn from Metzora. This implies that he knew that a Ta'ar is needed for a Metzora without [learning from] Nazir, for he comes to learn Nazir from Metzora;

[Rava bar Mesharshiya asks that] in this Beraisa, he wants to learn that a Metzora requires a razor from the law of Nazir and Leviyim. This implies that Metzora itself he learns only from Nazir!

Note: On 40a, we cited a Mishnah "three shave...", and the Gemara tried to learn Metzora from Nazir and Leviyim. However, Tosfos (40a DH Tanan, without any Hagahah) says that we cite Toras Kohanim. I.e. "three shave...", and the entire discussion, are one long Beraisa. It is not in our text of Toras Kohanim.

Citation of Gemara: Also from the Tzad ha'Shavah we cannot learn [Metzora].

Explanation: We say "you cannot learn from the Tzad ha'Shavah..." and in the end, we learn from "Rosho" written regarding a Nazir who is a Metzora.

Citation of Gemara: And this is like R. Eliezer.

Explanation: [R. Eliezer] knew a razor for a Metzora only from Nazir, like it proceeds to explain.

Citation of Gemara: A Mishnah teaches.

Citation (Makos 20a - Mishnah): "One is liable only..." Regarding the corners of the beard, it teaches that one is liable for cutting the corners of the beard, both for Kohanim and Yisre'elim, only with a razor;

R. Eliezer said, even if he removed them with Melaket or Rehitani (planing tools; some say, tweezers), he is liable.

Explanation: What is our source, due to which it is obvious to Rabanan that Metzora requires a razor, even without [learning from] Nazir, like they hold?

The Beraisa asks what we learn from "Zekano". It says "v'Hayah va'Yom ha'Shevi'i Yegalach Es Kol Se'aro Es Rosho v'Es Zekano..." The beard was included in "all his hair." Why was the beard taught by itself?

[We answer that] regarding Kohanim, it says "u'Fe'as Zekanam Lo Yigalechu." One might have thought that this applies even to a Metzora, i.e. a Kohen Metzora may not shave his beard;

Implied question: (How could we think so?) It says "v'Gilach Es Kol Se'aro"!

Answer: You are forced to say [that this means all his hair] except for his beard, or if [the hairs of] his beard fell out, because the Aseh of shaving is not Docheh the Lav of cutting a Kohen's beard, and the Aseh of "Kedoshim [Yihyu]" of Kohanim (to guard the Mitzvos of Kohanim).

[Therefore,] it says "Zekano", which is extra. It is written regarding a Metzora, to teach that the Aseh of Zekano is Docheh the Lav "Lo Yegalechu" of Kohanim and the Aseh "Kedoshim Yihyu."

Question: Normally, an Aseh is not Docheh a Lav and an Aseh!

Answer: Here it is Docheh, like it says in Yevamos (5a), because this Lav and Aseh are not Shavah b'Chol (do not apply to everyone). There is no Isur for women to cut the beard [of a man, or of a woman, if she would grow hairs there], like it says in Kidushin (35b).

Question: Perhaps [Zekano] comes to permit only the Lav [regarding Yisre'elim] "Lo Sashchis Pe'as Zekanecha"!

Answer #1: Presumably, we should say that the verse was written Stam, [to teach about] both Yisre'elim and Kohanim.

Answer #2: This answer is primary. You are forced to say that according to Rabanan, we do not need a verse for the mere Lav regarding Yisre'elim. They learn from Rosho [written in the verse before Zekano] that the Aseh of [shaving a] Metzora overrides the Lav of Hakafah (cutting the sideburns);

They hold that the Hakafah of the entire head (which includes the sideburns) is called Hakafah, like it says below;

If so, we [do not] need Zekano [to permit only the Lav of Yisre'elim, rather,] only for Kohanim, to teach that the Aseh of Metzora overrides the Lav and Aseh of shaving for Kohanim.

Conclusion: Since the verse Zekano comes to permit for him the Lav of shaving, and one is liable for the Lav of shaving only with a razor, this implies that shaving a Metzora must be with a razor;

If not, what would Zekano teach?! (Since he may shave without a razor, there is no Heter to shave with a razor, like we say below.)

Explanation: [Shaving that totally cuts is with a razor,] and the Torah permitted a Metzora Kohen, and in Kidushin (35b) we learn a Gezeirah Shavah "Pe'ah-Pe'ah" Kohanim from Yisre'elim [and vice-versa];

[Our Gemara] asks "what is the source that Tiglachas Metzora is only through a razor?

Perhaps even through Melaket or Rehitani, a Metzora fulfills the Mitzvah of shaving, and Zekano comes to teach that if he wants to slave with a razor, he may!

Normally, he is forbidden [to shave] the corners of his beard. Here it is permitted, and he is not liable!

Citation of Gemara: The Gemara answers "I can say..."

Explanation: You are forced to say that Zekano was written to teach that he must shave with a razor, and not with something else;

If you will say that if he shaved with Melaket or Rehitani, it is fine, the Torah should have omitted [Zekano]!

Implied question: Perhaps it comes to teach that he may shave the corners of his beard with a razor!

Answer: We do not need "Zekano" for this. We know that it is permitted from a Kal va'Chomer [that the Gemara brings now]!

Citation of Gemara: The text says "a Nazir..."

Implied question #1: We could have asked that we cannot learn to a Kohen Metzora, for the Torah gave extra Mitzvos to Kohanim! (Perhaps it is harder to override a Kohen's extra Mitzvos than a Yisrael's Mitzvos.) The Gemara asks like this everywhere. Therefore, the Aseh of Metzora is not Docheh the Lav of Kohanim.

Implied question #2: Also [we could have asked that Mitzvas Tiglachas] Nazir overrides only a mere Lav of Hakafah. We cannot learn to Kohanim, for whom there is a Lav and an Aseh - the Lav of shaving the beard, and the Aseh of Kedoshim [Yihyu]!

Answer: Primarily, [the Gemara's answer] relies on the latter challenge from Reish Lakish's teaching.

Citation of Gemara: The text says "a Nazir did an Isur..."

Explanation #1: Even a Nazir Tahor sins a little, like it says in Nedarim (10a) and above (19a).

Explanation #2: We learn from a Nazir Tamei. Also his shaving it is with a razor, like it connotes below that we learn Tahor from Tamei and Tamei from Tahor;

Even so, his Mitzvah of shaving overrides the Lav of Hakafah. He holds that Hakafah of the entire head is called Hakafah, like it says below, and even so, he is obligated;

I.e. even so he is obligated to shave his entire head and override the Lav of Hakafah.

Explanation: [A Metzora's] Mitzvah of shaving did not come through any Isur. All the more so, his Mitzvah to shave overrides the Lav of shaving!

Note: Even though Chachamim explained that Tzara'as comes due to certain Aveiros, we may make a Kal va'Chomer based on what is written. The laws of Tzara'as were written about anyone with Tzara'as, whether or not he sinned.

Question: How can we learn from a Nazir? His Korban requires bread, like [the Gemara] asked above!

Answer: Here is different. Surely, above, we needed to obligate a razor for a Metzora, and not other matters that remove hair. We properly challenged this;

For a Nazir, it is proper that he needs a razor to shave, for we find another stringency in him. His Korban requires bread;

However, here we do not want to learn to obligate a razor for a Metzora from Tiglachas Nazir, only that it is permitted to remove with a razor, like other matters that remove. This challenge does not apply at all, for we do not seek to learn a stringency from Nazir.

Question: However, in any case, this is astounding. This Sugya is according to Rabanan. It is proven that according to Rabanan, they knew that Tiglachas Metzora requires a razor before they knew regarding Nazir!

The Beraisa above (39b) said "we cannot learn [Nazir] from Metzora... This shows that it was obvious to Rabanan that a Metzora requires a razor for his Tiglachas;