QUESTION: The Gemara explains that according to the Rabanan (who argue with Rebbi Eliezer), the Halachah that a Metzora's Gilu'ach (shaving) must be done with a Ta'ar (razor) is derived from the phrase "Zekano" in the verse which teaches that a Metzora Kohen must shave off all of his hair like an ordinary Metzora (Vayikra 14:9). A Kohen normally is prohibited from shaving his head with a Ta'ar. The fact that a verse teaches that he may shave when he is a Metzora indicates that the Metzora is obligated to shave with a Ta'ar; if a Metzora could shave with any other instrument, no verse would be necessary to teach that a Metzora Kohen is permitted to shave (since he could shave with another instrument and not with a Ta'ar).

The Gemara asks that perhaps a Metzora may remove his hair with a Melaket or Rehitni if he wants, and the term "Zekano" teaches that if a Metzora Kohen wants to use a Ta'ar he is permitted (but not required) to do so.

The Gemara rejects this suggestion and says that the Torah would not permit a Metzora Kohen to use a Ta'ar when there is another way to fulfill his Mitzvah of Gilu'ach.

REBBI AKIVA EIGER (in Gilyon ha'Shas) asks a strong question on the Gemara's suggestion that a Metzora may use a Melaket or Rehitni. In the Beraisa earlier, the Rabanan teach that the phrase "v'Lo Sashchis" (Vayikra 19:27), which teaches that one may not destroy the hair of the "Pe'os" of his beard, excludes the use of scissors, because scissors do not cut the hair from its root at the skin ("Hashchasah"). The word "Yegalechu" (Vayikra 21:5), written with regard to the Mitzvah which specifically prohibits a Kohen from shaving the "Pe'os" of his beard, excludes the use of a Melaket and Rehitni, because those instruments are not "Derech Gilu'ach" -- they are not normally used for shaving (TOSFOS DH Iy Lo). Since the Gemara here, which discusses the Gilu'ach of a Metzora, is explaining the opinion of the Rabanan, and the verse says that a Metzora must shave his hair, it should be obvious that a Metzora may not use a Melaket or Rehitni! The Gemara should have asked that perhaps a Metzora may use scissors, since the verse which discusses the Gilu'ach of a Metzora does not state that a Metzora must perform "Hashchasah" to his hair. A Melaket and Rehitni, however, certainly may not be used!

Rebbi Akiva Eiger adds that Tosfos in Shevuos (2b) writes this explicitly. Tosfos writes that no verse is necessary to teach that a Melaket and Rehitni may not be used according to the Rabanan, because they maintain that the word "v'Gilach" excludes a Melaket and Rehitni. It is only Rebbi Eliezer, who maintains that Gilu'ach with a Melaket or a Rehitni is a valid form of Gilu'ach with regard to the prohibition against shaving the beard, who needs a verse to teach that a Metzora may not use a Melaket and Rehitni.

ANSWERS: The simple answer seems to be that the Gemara's usage of the words "Melaket and Rehitni" here (40b) is not precise. The Gemara means to ask that perhaps the Rabanan permit Gilu'ach with scissors. The reason the Gemara mentions "Melaket and Rehitni" instead of "scissors" is that it seeks to maintain consistency with the Gemara later (41a) which uses this wording when it asks the same question on Rebbi Eliezer, who considers Gilu'ach with a Melaket or Rehitni a valid form of Gilu'ach. This may be the intention of Tosfos in Shevuos.

Tosfos here, however, clearly does not follow this approach. TOSFOS (DH Ha Keitzad, and 41a, DH v'Su) does not comment on the words "Melaket and Rehitni" and even adds explicitly that the Gemara refers to Gilu'ach "with Melaket, Rehitni, or scissors," implying that even the Rabanan consider Gilu'ach with a Melaket or Rehitni a valid form of Gilu'ach. How does Tosfos here answer Rebbi Akiva Eiger's question?

(a) The KEREN ORAH explains that perhaps the prohibition against shaving the beard includes Gilu'ach with a Ta'ar or with a Melaket and Rehitni, according to the Rabanan. However, shaving with a Melaket or Rehitni is a lesser form of Gilu'ach. Hence, when the Torah prohibits Gilu'ach, it is unclear whether the Torah intends to prohibit even the lesser form of Gilu'ach (of Melaket and Rehitni) or to prohibit only the primary form of Gilu'ach (with a Ta'ar). Consequently, the person is liable only when he performs an act which the Torah definitely intends to include in the prohibition, and thus he is liable only for Gilu'ach with a Ta'ar. In contrast, when the Torah gives a Mitzvas Aseh to shave (in the case of a Metzora), again it is unclear whether the Torah intends to include even the lesser form of Gilu'ach in the Mitzvah or only the primary form of Gilu'ach. Accordingly, the Metzora can be forced to shave with a certain instrument only if it is known for certain that the verse obligates him to shave with that instrument. Due to the doubt about the Torah's intention, it may not be assumed that the Metzora is obligated by the Torah to shave with only a Ta'ar, and thus he is permitted to shave even with a Melaket or Rehitni.

(This approach is difficult to understand. The Keren Orah apparently assumes that a Melaket and a Rehitni have the status of a Safek Ta'ar. The Safek, however, is not the Torah's doubt, but our doubt. The Torah certainly knows with what type of instrument it prohibits the shaving of the beard. It is we who do not know the Torah's intention. Accordingly, there is no basis to suggest that the Limud from Metzora Kohen might allow the use of a Melaket and Rehitni because we are unsure of the status of those instruments. How can we say that the meaning of the verse is based on our Safek?)

(b) Perhaps Tosfos here understands that the word "v'Gilach" (Vayikra 14:8, the verse which commands the Metzora to shave his hair) includes shaving with even a Melaket and Rehitni, as the words of the Gemara imply. When the Beraisa earlier says that according to the Rabanan the word "Yegalechu" excludes a Melaket and Rehitni, it derives this exclusion from the change in the verse's wording, from "Lo Sashchis" (Vayikra 19:27) to "Lo Yegalechu" (Vayikra 21:5). If the Torah intended to prohibit shaving with a Melaket and Rehitni, it would have written "Lo Sashchis" as it writes with regard to the Lav which prohibits a Yisrael from shaving his beard. By changing its wording, the Torah teaches that not only is the prohibition transgressed only with Gilu'ach, but it is transgressed only with an act which is "k'Derech Gilu'ach," the normal manner of shaving (excluding Melaket and Rehitni). Accordingly, the verse of Metzora -- which uses only one word "v'Gilach" and makes no change in wording at any point -- may include shaving with a Melaket and Rehitni as well.

According to this approach, Tosfos' proof (beginning of 41a, in DH d'Mitzvah, and 41b, DH Hashta) that the prohibition of Hakafas ha'Rosh applies even with scissors is difficult to understand. The Gemara teaches that a Metzora must use a Ta'ar to shave his beard. The Gemara derives this from the fact that the Torah emphasizes -- with the word "Zekano" -- that a Metzora is permitted to shave his beard even though shaving the beard is normally prohibited. Since shaving the beard is prohibited only with a Ta'ar, when the Torah permits the Metzora to shave his beard, it means that he must use a Ta'ar to shave his beard. (That is, the Torah says that the Metzora must shave with the instrument with which he would transgress the prohibition against shaving if he would not be a Metzora.) Before the Torah states that a Metzora must shave his beard, it states that he must shave his entire head. Here, too, the Torah emphasizes -- with the word "Rosho" -- that a Metzora is permitted to shave his entire head even though the Torah prohibits such an act for someone who is not a Metzora. Tosfos asks that if the prohibition of shaving the head (Hakafas ha'Rosh) applies only when done with a Ta'ar, the Gemara should learn that a Metzora must shave with a Ta'ar from the earlier verse which says that a Metzora must shave his entire head despite the prohibition of Hakafas ha'Rosh. It must be that Hakafas ha'Rosh is prohibited even when done only with scissors (without a Ta'ar).

How does Tosfos prove from here that Hakafas ha'Rosh is prohibited even with scissors? All this proves is that Hakafas ha'Rosh is prohibited with instruments other than a Ta'ar; perhaps Hakafas ha'Rosh is prohibited with a Melaket and Rehitni, but not with scissors! Consequently, "Rosho" does not teach that a Metzora must use a Ta'ar, and thus "Zekano" is necessary to teach that he must use a Ta'ar and he may not use a Melaket and Rehitni. (See Tosfos to Shevuos 2b, DH Chayav.)

The answer is that Tosfos here apparently understands that if Hakafas ha'Rosh may not be done with a Melaket or Rehitni, there is no logic to distinguish between a Melaket or Rehitni and scissors, since the verse does not mention the word "v'Gilach" with regard to Hakafas ha'Rosh. If the verse would prohibit Hakafas ha'Rosh with a Melaket or Rehitni, it also would prohibit Hakafas ha'Rosh with scissors. (See GILYON HA'SHAS to Shevuos 2b, and Insights to Nazir 41b.)