Nazir

But could Scripture possibly intend this?  Has not Resh Lakish said that wherever we find a positive command and a prohibition [at variance], then if it is possible to observe both, well and good, otherwise the positive command overrides the prohibition?  — We must therefore say that both [Tannaim] agree that the rounding of the whole head counts as rounding [the corners], and that the authority who utilises the verse ['his head' to prove that a positive command] may override both a prohibition and a positive command, infers that a simple prohibition [can be overridden] from [the command to wear] twisted cords. For the verse says, Thou shalt not wear a mingled stuff,  and it has been taught [in explanation of this]: Thou shalt not wear a mingled stuff, [wool and linen together], but nevertheless, Thou shalt make thee twisted cords  of them. Why does not the one who infers this [rule]  from 'his head' infer it from 'twisted cords'? — He will reply that [the latter] is required for [the following dictum of] Raba. For Raba noted the following contradiction. It is written, And that they put with the fringe of each corner, [i.e.,] of the same [material] as the corner  must there be a thread of blue.  Yet it is [also] written wool and linen together.  How are these to be reconciled? Wool and linen discharge [the obligation to provide fringes] both for [garments of] their own species,  and also for other species,  but other kinds [of material] discharge [this obligation] only for [garments of] the same species but not for [garments of] a different species. And whence does the Tanna who utilizes 'his head' for [the inference that a positive command overrides] a simple prohibition learn that the positive command  overrides both a prohibition and a positive command?  — He infers it from [the expression] 'his beard'.  For it has been taught: Why does Scripture mention 'his beard'?  Since it says,  neither shall they shave off the corners of their beard,  it might be thought that the same is true of a priest who is a leper, and so Scripture says 'his beard'. Why does not the [Tanna] who utilizes 'his head' for [teaching that] the positive command and prohibition [can be overruled by a positive command] infer it from [the words] 'his beard'? — But according to your view  when we have the rule elsewhere