Study Nazir folio 58B with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
that a positive mitzva does not come and override a prohibition and a positive mitzva, let him derive from the fact that a leprous priest must shave that this mitzva does override a prohibition and another positive mitzva.
Rather, he would explain that we do not derive other cases of the Torah from the halakha of a priest, for the following reason: What is different about the prohibition of a priest is that it is a prohibition that is not equally applicable to all, i.e., the prohibitions of a priest do not apply to
The Talmud turns its attention to the other opinion: And according to the one who establishes this verse: “He shall shave all his hair; his head and his beard” (Leviticus 14:9), as referring to a nazirite, i.e., he derives from this verse the principle that in certain cases, including that of a lep
The Talmud answers: He requires it for that which is taught in a baraita with regard to the shaving of a metzora, which must be performed with a razor: Why must the verse state: “His beard,” as it already stated that he shaves all his hair? Since it is stated: “Neither shall they shave off the corn
And from where do we derive that a metzora must shave with a razor? As it is taught in a baraita: “Neither shall they shave off the corners of their beard” (Leviticus 21:5). One might have thought that priests should be liable even if they shaved their beards with scissors. The verse states: “And yo