Parallel
יבמות 5:1
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
This is satisfactory according to the view of the Tanna of the School of R. Ishmael; as to the Rabbis, however, how do they arrive at the deduction? — They derive it from his head; for it was taught: [Scripture stated], 'His head'; what need was there for it? — Whereas it has been stated, Ye shall not round the corners of your head, one might infer that [this law applies to] a leper also, hence it was explicitly stated, his head; and this Tanna is of the opinion that rounding all the head is also regarded as 'rounding'. This [conclusion, however,] may be refuted: The reason why the prohibition of 'rounding' [may be superseded is] because it is not applicable to everybody! — But [the inference] is derived from his beard; as it was taught: 'His beard'; what need was there for stating it? — Whereas it was said, Neither shall they shave off the corners of their beard, one might infer that this prohibition applies also to a leprous priest, hence it was explicitly stated, 'his beard'. And since there is no object in applying it to a prohibition which is not incumbent upon everybody, let it be applied to a prohibition which is incumbent upon all. But this is still required [for its own context]! For since it might have been assumed that as priests are different from [other people]. Scripture having imposed upon them additional commandments, and so even a prohibition which does not apply to everybody is not superseded in their case; [therefore] it was necessary to teach us that it does supersede. — In truth the inference comes from 'his head' [in the manner deduced by] the following Tanna. For It was taught: His head: what need was there for mentioning it? Whereas Scripture had stated, There shall no razor come upon his head, one might infer that the same prohibition is applicable to a leprous nazirite also, hence it was explicitly stated, 'his head'. This, however, may be refuted: The reason why a [leprous] nazirite [may shave his head] is because he is also in a position to obtain absolution. For, were not this the reason, what then of the accepted rule, that no positive precept may supersede a negative and positive precept combined; why not deduce the contrary from the law of the [leprous] nazirite? Consequently, [it must be conceded that] the reason why no deduction may be made [from the law of the nazirite is] because it may be refuted [on the grounds] that in his case absolution is possible; so here also the refutation may be advanced, 'Since in his case absolution is possible'! — The deduction, in fact, is made
—