Yevamot — Daf 5a

תינח לתנא דבי ר' ישמעאל לרבנן מנא להו

נפקא להו מראשו דתניא (ויקרא יד, ט) ראשו מה תלמוד לומר לפי שנאמר (ויקרא יט, כז) לא תקיפו (את) פאת ראשכם שומע אני אף מצורע כן

תלמוד לומר ראשו וקא סבר האי תנא הקפת כל הראש שמה הקפה

איכא למיפרך מה ללאו דהקפה שכן לאו שאין שוה בכל

אלא אתיא מזקנו דתניא (ויקרא יד, ט) זקנו מה תלמוד לומר לפי שנאמר (ויקרא כא, ה) ופאת זקנם לא יגלחו שומע אני אף כהן מצורע כן ת"ל זקנו

ואם אינו ענין ללאו שאין שוה בכל תנהו ענין ללאו השוה בכל

ואכתי איצטריך סד"א שאני כהנים הואיל וריבה בהן הכתוב מצות יתירות אפילו לאו שאין שוה בכל לא דחי קמ"ל דדחי

אלא אתיא מראשו דהך תנא דתניא ראשו מה ת"ל לפי שנאמר (במדבר ו, ה) תער לא יעבור על ראשו שומע אני אף מצורע ונזיר כן ת"ל ראשו

איכא למיפרך מה לנזיר מצורע שכן ישנו בשאלה דאי לא תימא הכי הא דקיימא לן דאין עשה דוחה לא תעשה ועשה

ליגמר מנזיר אלא מנזיר מ"ט לא גמרינן דאיכא למיפרך שכן ישנו בשאלה ה"נ איכא למיפרך שכן ישנו בשאלה

אלא לעולם

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  This [conclusion, however,] may be refuted: The reason why the prohibition of  'rounding' [may be superseded is] because it is not applicable to everybody!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having imposed upon them additional commandments, and so even a prohibition which does not apply to everybody is not superseded in their case; [therefore] it was necessary to teach us that it does supersede.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