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 Israelites. For the same reason, the case of a nazirite also cannot be derived from that of a priest, as the prohibition of a priest is a prohibition that is not equally applicable to all, in contrast to that of a nazirite. Consequently, the derivation from “his head” is necessary to teach that the shaving of a leper overrides the prohibition stated with regard to a nazirite.

The Gemara 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 leprous priest, a positive mitzva overrides a prohibition and a positive mitzva, why do I need the term “his beard”?

The Gemara answers: He requires it for that which is taught in a baraita with regard to the shaving of a leper, 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 corners of their beard” (Leviticus 21:5), one might have thought that even a priest who is a leper is included in the prohibition against shaving. The verse therefore states: “His beard,” to teach that a leprous priest must shave his beard as well.

And from where do we derive that a leper 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 you shall not destroy the corners of your beard” (Leviticus 19:27), which teaches that the prohibition applies only to the destruction of the beard from its roots. If the sole criterion is the phrase “you shall not destroy,” one might have thought that if he extracted his hair with tweezers or removed his hair with a carpenter’s plane, he should likewise be liable due to the prohibition against destroying his hair.

The verse therefore states: “Neither shall they shave off the corners of their beard.” Together the two verses lead to the following conclusion: Which is the type of shaving [giluaḥ] that involves destruction [hashḥata]? You must say it is a razor. The fact that it was necessary for the Torah to permit a leper to shave his beard with a razor, notwithstanding the prohibition against using this implement, proves that the positive mitzva overrides this prohibition, as derived from the term “his beard.”

The Gemara continues to inquire: And according to the one who derives from the term “his head” the principle that a positive mitzva overrides only a prohibition, why do I need the verse to write: “His head,” and why do I also need the same verse to write: “His beard”? Once is it derived from the phrase “his beard” that a positive mitzva overrides a positive mitzva and a prohibition, the same should certainly apply to a prohibition by itself.

The Gemara answers: Both the term “his head” and the term “his beard” could come to teach the overriding of only a prohibition, and they also could teach the overriding of a prohibition and a positive mitzva. Since the verse is formulated in general terms, it includes a priest or a nazirite. Therefore, as it cannot be determined to which case the Torah is referring, it is even, i.e., equally balanced, and consequently let both terms come and teach this principle, one with regard to a nazirite, and the other with regard to a priest.

The Gemara adds that both terms are necessary, as the halakha of a priest cannot be derived from that of a nazirite, as the case of a nazirite is lenient in that it is possible to dissolve naziriteship by request from a halakhic authority. Likewise, the halakha of a nazirite cannot be derived from that of a priest, as the case of a priest involves a prohibition that is not equally applicable to all. The Gemara comments: And generally, with regard to other halakhot, we cannot derive from these two cases that a positive mitzva overrides a prohibition and a positive mitzva, due to the fact that this argument can be refuted as we said here.

§ Rav said: A person who is not a nazirite may lighten his burden by removing all the hair of his body with a razor. One who feels he has too much hair may shave all of it off with a razor, apart from his beard and the corners of his head. The Gemara raises an objection against this from a baraita: A man who removes the hair of the armpit or the pubic hair is flogged for transgressing the prohibition: “A man shall not put on a woman’s garment” (Deuteronomy 22:5), as this behavior is the manner of women.

The Gemara answers: In this case he is flogged because he shaved with a razor, whereas in that case Rav said it is permitted because he was referring to one who removes hair with scissors, an act that is not considered a prohibition. The Gemara raises a difficulty: But Rav said it is permitted with a razor as well. The Gemara answers: He did not mean an actual razor; rather, he said that one may use an implement that is similar to a razor, i.e., scissors that cut very close to the skin, in the manner of a razor.

Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: A man who removes the hair of the armpit or the pubic hair is flogged. The Gemara raises an objection against this ruling: The removal of hair is not prohibited by Torah law but by rabbinic law. Why, then, is he liable to receive lashes? The Gemara explains: What does it mean that Rabbi Yoḥanan says that he is flogged? This means that he is flogged by rabbinic law, a punishment known as lashes for rebelliousness, for disobeying a rabbinic decree.