Summation of question: Here, if not for the Kal va'Chomer from Nazir, we would not know that a Metzora must shave with a razor!

Answer: Even if we did not know that the Mitzvah for a Nazir to shave is with a razor, we could learn a Kal va'Chomer from Nazir that his Tiglachas overrides [the Isur of] Hakafah of the sideburns, for there is a Lav of Hakafah with scissors, like it connotes below;

A Metzora, all the more so he may shave even with a razor, and override the Lav of shaving the beard!

Conclusion: Rather, you are forced to say that the verse of Zekano comes to obligate a razor, and not other matters that remove.

Explanation: [If you think that through Melaket or Rehitani] he fulfills the Mitzvah of shaving, you are forced to say that "Zekano" does not come to say that he may use a razor;

Since the Torah did not write Ta'ar, i.e. explicitly, we must say like Reish Lakish...

It is forbidden to shave with a razor, since he can fulfill both of them through shaving with a Melaket, Rehitani or scissors, and not override the Lav of shaving the beard.

Implied question: The Gemara should have said "we do not permit a razor, since the Torah did not [explicitly] write Ta'ar!"

Answer: The Gemara abbreviated what it should have said. The text in Nazir is concise. In several places it is abbreviated.

Conclusion: You are forced to say that "Zekano" comes to make a razor obligatory for a Metzora. He fulfills his Tiglachas only with a razor.

Explanation: [We ask, what do we learn from] Rosho written regarding Metzora? The beginning of the verse already said "Yegalach Es Kol Se'aro." What does "Es Rosho" teach?

[We answer that] since it says regarding Nazir "Ta'ar Lo Ya'avor Al Rosho" during his Nezirus, one might have thought that even a Nazir Metzora may not shave;

"Kol Se'aro" refers to the rest of his body, or to other people (Metzora'im who are not Nezirim);

We should not say that the Aseh of shaving a Metzora overrides the Lav of a Nazir "Ta'ar Lo Ya'avor Al Rosho" and the Aseh of "Gadel Pera Se'ar Rosho"!

[We answer that] Rosho is extra, to teach that even a Nazir Metzora must shave with a razor.

Implied question: Why doesn't R. Eliezer establish Rosho to discuss any person's head, and not [only] a Nazir, to override the Lav of Hakafah alone?

Answer #1: He holds that Hakafah of the entire head is not called Hakafah. (It is always permitted, so we do not need a verse to permit it.)

Answer #2: R. Eliezer knows that Aseh is Docheh a mere Lo Sa'aseh from "Gedilim", like we say below. If so, Rosho is needed only for a Nazir's head;

Even though there is a Lav "Ta'ar Lo Ya'avor" and an Aseh of "Gadel Pera", the Aseh v'Gilach overrides them, due to the superfluous Rosho written regarding Metzora.

Observation: Now, R. Eliezer learns a razor for a Metzora from Nazir. What is forbidden for a Nazir, to pass a razor on his head, is required for a Metzora, to shave with a razor.

Support: This is what the Beraisa above (40b) tried to learn a razor for a Metzora from Leviyim and Nazir from a Tzad ha'Shavah, and could not;

It needed to learn from Rosho. Really, we learn from Nazir to Metzora, that he requires a razor [for Tiglachas].

Explanation: R. Eliezer holds that a Nazir is lashed only for [shaving with] a razor, like R. Yonason above (39b).

Therefore, what is forbidden for a Nazir, i.e. a razor, is required for a Metzora, like it (Rosho) connotes;

If a Nazir were lashed also for other matters that remove, we would not know that a Metzora need a razor. We could say that the verse Rosho teaches about other matters that remove!

Explanation: [We ask like above, that] perhaps even through Melaket or Rehitani, he fulfills the Mitzvah of [Tiglachas] Metzora.

[The Gemara asks, if so,] why would we need [Rosho] to permit even through a razor?

[It answers that] one might have thought that [since a Nazir is liable,] also regarding a Metzora he is liable. I.e. also when the Nazir is a Metzora [he is liable. Rosho] teaches that this is not so.

Explanation (cont.): [We answer that] if you would think that through Melaket or Rehitani, he fulfills the Mitzvah of [Tiglachas] Metzora, since the Torah did not explicitly write Ta'ar, the Aseh of Metzora would not be Docheh the Lo Sa'aseh of Nazir, since it is possible to fulfill both of them.

Question: Why didn't we give here also the answer we gave above (40b) [that if through Melaket or Rehitani he fulfills Tiglachas Metzora,] the Torah should have omitted ["v'Lo Sashchis" and "Lo Yegalechu", which teach a Ta'ar], and I would say that a Nazir transgressed... [yet his Tiglachas overrides Hakafah. All the more so, Tiglachas Metzora overrides the Isur of shaving!]?

Answer #1: Here [we cannot give this answer, for] we can say that Nazir is different, for there is only one Lav of Hakafas Rosh. Therefore, Tiglachas Nazir overrides it;

However, a Nazir Metzora has two Lavim - the Lav of Nazir "Ta'ar Lo Ya'avor", and the Lav of Hakafas ha'Rosh. Therefore, the Aseh of [Tiglachas] Metzora does not override these two Lavim, and also the Aseh of Gadel Pera.

Answer #2 (Maharam): Based on the Havah Amina below (58a) about this Beraisa, that Hakafah of the entire head is not called Hakafah, there is not even one Isur for a Nazir in the place of the sideburns;

We cannot make a Kal va'Chomer from Nazir, for there, there is no Dichuy.

Explanation: [Rabanan need Rosho] to override the Lav of Hakafah, even for a Metzora who is not a Nazir. We need a verse to override the Lav of Hakafah;

(Beraisa) Suggestion: Perhaps "Lo Sakifu Pe'as Roshchem" applies even to a Metzora;

Implied question: (How could we think so?) It says "v'Gilach Es Kol Se'aro"!

Answer: [This means all his hair] except for the sideburns, or if the sideburns fell out.

Rejection: Rosho written regarding a Metzora is extra. It teaches that the Aseh of Tiglachas Metzora overrides the Lav of Hakafas ha'Rosh;

Citation of Gemara: The Torah needed to write Zekano and Rosho. Had it written only Zekano but not Rosho, one might have thought that Hakafah of the entire head is not called Hakafah;

The primary Isur of Hakafah "Lo Sakifu Pe'as", one might have thought that this is only when he cuts only the sideburns, like we say elsewhere (Makos 20b) "what is Hakafah? It is one who [cuts his sideburns, and] makes his [hairline at the] Tzida'a even with [his hairline] in back of his ear and his forehead.

Tzida'a is the hair that grows near the ears, and in back of his ears it is smooth, and there is no hair. Also on his forehead, there is no hair;

When one removes the hair on the temples, and it is smooth, it turns out that it is even with in back of his ears and his forehead. All agree that he transgresses a Lav;

They argue about one who shaves the entire head, and also the sideburns. One opinion holds that this is called Hakafah, and one opinion holds that this is not called Hakafah.

Explanation: [Had the Torah written only Rosho,] even though this connotes both, i.e. Aseh Docheh Lo Sa'aseh, and Hakafah of the entire head is called Hakafah, still, we would not know a razor, that Tiglachas Metzora requires a razor;

One is liable for Hakafas Pe'as Rosh even with scissors, without a razor. The verse did not mention Ta'ar. It says only Lo Sakifu Stam;

Therefore, the Torah wrote Zekano. From this, Rabanan expound above that Tiglachas Metzora is specifically with a razor. Therefore, we need both Rosho and Zekano.

Question: According to Rabanan, when a Nazir is a Metzora, on his head there are two Lavim and an Aseh! There is the Lav "Ta'ar Lo Ya'avor Al Rosho", the Aseh Gadel Pera, and the Lav of Hakafah;

What is Rabanan's source that the Aseh of Gilu'ach Metzora overrides all of these?

Answer #1: We must say that they learn all of them from Rosho. The verse discusses every case, whether he is a Nazir or he is not a Nazir.

Answer #2: Since the Torah revealed through "Zekano" that the Aseh of Gilu'ach overrides the Lav and Aseh of Kohanim - the Lav of shaving, and the Aseh of "Kedoshim Yihyu" - similarly, it overrides two Lavim and an Aseh;

Rabanan hold that it is unreasonable to distinguish between one Lav and two Lavim.

Support: There is a Tana below (48b) who does not distinguish between one Lav and two Lavim.

Implied question: The Lav and Aseh of Kohanim is not Shavah b'Chol! (It is reasonable to distinguish regarding a Nazir, who has a Lav that is Shavah b'Chol!)

Answer: Also the Lav and Aseh of Nazir and the Lav of Hakafah are not Shavah b'Chol. They apply only to Nezirim and only to men, [respectively].

Disclaimer: However, below (48b), the Lav of Nazir is considered Shavah b'Chol! We make a Tzerichusa (show the need for both), and say that we could not learn Nazir from Kohanim, because Kohanim is not Shavah b'Chol;

We could not learn Kohanim from Nazir, because Nezirus can be permitted through She'elah.

Question: According to R. Eliezer, since he establishes Rosho for the head of a Nazir [Metzora], to teach that the Aseh of Gilu'ach overrides the Lav of "Ta'ar Lo Ya'avor" and also the Aseh of Gadel Pera...

Why does R. Eliezer further need Zekano to teach that the Aseh of Gilu'ach overrides the Lav of Kohanim to shave and the Aseh of "Kedoshim Yihyu"? He should learn this from Rosho!

Answer #1: We can challenge this. You cannot learn from a Nazir's head, since he can permit Nezirus through She'elah.

Answer #2: [You cannot learn to] Kohanim, for the Torah gave them extra Mitzvos. Therefore, the Aseh of Gilu'ach is not Docheh the Lav and Aseh of Kohanim.

Suggestion: The Torah should have written Zekano, and omitted Rosho!

Answer: R. Eliezer needs Rosho to teach that the Mitzvah of Gilu'ach Metzora is specifically with a razor, and not with other matters that remove, like it says above.

Observation: You are forced to say that here, our Sugya connotes that Hakafas ha'Rosh is even without a razor.

Support (Toras Kohanim, Parshas Zos Tihyeh Toras ha'Metzora): What do we learn from Rosho? Since there are [laws of] the beard that do not apply to the [corners of the] head, and [laws of] the head that do not apply to the beard...

It is forbidden to cut the [hair on the corners of the] head with a scissors, and this is permitted in the beard.

Contradiction (Tosefta Makos 4:10): One is liable twice [for the sideburns], once for this temple, and once for this temple. He is liable only for cutting them with a razor.

Answer: It means that he is liable only for cutting them [very short] like a razor.

Support: Also in Makos (20b), it says that one who evens [his hairline at the] Tzida'a with [his hairline] in back of his ear and his forehead [is lashed]. Also this means like a razor, and even with scissors.

Disclaimer: We can reject the [support from] Toras Kohanim. You are forced to say that it does not discuss the Isur of Hakafas ha'Rosh, rather, a Nazir;

It is forbidden to shave his head during the days of his Nezirus even with scissors, according to the opinion above that includes all matters that remove.

Proof: The Seifa there proves so. It teaches "the head is permitted to all people, and the beard is forbidden to all people";

If it refers to Hakafas ha'Rosh, how is everyone's head permitted?! [Rather,] we infer that it discusses a Nazir, and teaches that shaving [the head] is permitted for all people who are not Nezirim.

Note: "The head is permitted" does not include the sideburns. Alternatively, it refers to shaving the entire head, according to the opinion that Hakafah of the entire head is not called Hakafah. Seemingly, the Seifa should forbid the beard to all men. Perhaps since the Reisha must teach "to all people", also the Seifa says so.

Pesak: One must be careful not to cut the sideburns even with scissors, for this is properly called like a razor;

People do so when they shave children. They leave on the temple many hairs.

Note: Tosfos forbids only evening the hairline. If he leaves many hairs, there is no concern. The Shulchan Aruch (YD 181:9) says not to cut anything in the area, for it is a Safek mid'Oraisa (Bi'ur ha'Gra); Semag and a Tosefta hold that one who cuts two hairs transgresses.

Question: He should learn from Rosho and Zekano that Aseh Docheh Lo Sa'aseh, and even a Lav and Aseh!

Suggestion: We cannot learn from them, for the Lav is not Shavah b'Chol. The Lav of Zekano does not apply to women, like it says in Kidushin (35b).

Rejection: If so, we can ask also against Rabanan, what is their source in general that Aseh Docheh Lo Sa'aseh!

Answer #1 (R. Peretz): We ask against R. Eliezer, because he establishes Rosho for Nazir, which has a Lav and an Aseh. If so, he [must] know that Aseh Docheh Lo Sa'aseh from another verse;

If not, he could not establish Rosho for a Lav and an Aseh;

Rather, [he would establish it] for a Lav alone, for the head of a Stam person (not a Nazir), to override the Lav of Hakafah, like Rabanan establish it to teach that Hakafas Kol ha'Rosh is considered Hakafah, and Zekano teaches that it is Docheh even a Lav and Aseh.

Had it not written Rosho, we would not know that Hakafas Kol ha'Rosh is considered Hakafah. Rosho teaches [that it is].

Answer #2 (another Tosfos): We ask what is R. Eliezer's source that Aseh Docheh Lo Sa'aseh;

Since he establishes Zekano above for a Kohen Metzora, and the Aseh of Gilu'ach is Docheh the Lav and Aseh of Kohanim, i.e. the Lav of the beard and the Aseh "Kedoshim Yihyu", this implies that it is obvious to him that elsewhere, an Aseh is Docheh a mere Lav;

If not, what is his source to establish [Zekano] regarding a Kohen? He should establish it to teach about a Yisrael's beard, to teach that he Aseh of Gilu'ach Metzora is Docheh the Lav of shaving for Yisre'elim;

However, a Kohen Metzora, perhaps [his Aseh to shave] is not Docheh the Lav and Aseh of Kohanim "Kedoshim [Yihyu]"!

Distinction: Granted, according to Rabanan, who establish Rosho of Metzora to teach that the Aseh of Gilu'ach is Docheh the Lav of Hakafas ha'Rosh, if so, similarly, the Aseh of Metzora is Docheh the Lav of the corners of the beard;

Therefore, for a Yisrael [we do not need Zekano, for we learn from Rosho. Rather, Zekano teaches about a Kohen - Birkas Rosh].

Answer #3 (Maharam): It is fine for Rabanan. We can say that Rosho, Im Eino Inyan (if we do not need it to teach that Aseh Docheh Lo Sa'aseh) that is not Shavah b'Chol, for we know from Zekano even a Lav and an Aseh that are not Shavah b'Chol, we use it to teach a Lav that is Shavah b'Chol.

Question: We need Rosho to teach that Hakafas Kol ha'Rosh is considered Hakafah!

Answer: We can say that we know this from reasoning. In this way, the Sugya is unlike the Sugya below (58a):

[Here], initially the Gemara wanted to say that we establish Rosho only for Hakafas Rosh, to teach that Hakafas Kol ha'Rosh is considered Hakafah;

After this, we must say in the entire Sugya that we know that Hakafas Kol ha'Rosh is considered Hakafah from reasoning;

Merely to cover all possibilities, the Gemara [initially] said so, if you will say that we properly learn Aseh Docheh Lo Sa'aseh from Tzitzis of Kil'ayim (then Rosho teaches only that Hakafas Kol ha'Rosh is considered Hakafah);

However, if Gedilim comes to teach like Rava, like he said in Yevamos (4b, that wool and linen exempt garments of any material), the Gemara discusses [and concludes that] even so, Rabanan properly learn that Aseh Docheh Lo Sa'aseh through Im Eino Inyan;

Then, we will say from reasoning that Hakafas Kol ha'Rosh is considered Hakafah, like we conclude below (58a).

Explanation: [This is why the Gemara asks] however, according to R. Eliezer, who establishes Rosho for a Nazir Metzora, and also Zekano comes to teach about a Kohen, [what is his source that Aseh Docheh Lo Sa'aseh ha'Shavah b'Chol]?

If we learn from them, will we say that he argues everywhere and says that Aseh Docheh Lo Sa'aseh v'Aseh?!

Note: We explain like Birkas Rosh, who moves the next two lines of Tosfos (printed in our Gemaros) to the end of this Dibur.

Rather, [he does not learn from them] because we can ask like it asks in Yevamos (5a);

We cannot learn from a Kohen, for [his Lav and Aseh are] not Shavah b'Chol. We cannot learn from a Nazir, because She'elah can undo [his Nezirus]. We need both of them.

It is still difficult, what is his source that Aseh Docheh Lo Sa'aseh ha'Shavah b'Chol?

Explanation: However, you are forced to say that R. Eliezer derives that an Aseh is Docheh a Lo Sa'aseh alone for all Lavim like this (i.e. without an accompanying Aseh). If not, what is his source for a Metzora to shave with a razor?

He cannot learn from Rosho. Perhaps it does not come to override for a [Metzora] Nazir, for there are two Lavim, of Hakafah and of Nazir. Rather, it comes only for Hakafah [of one who is not a Nazir]!

Rather, now the Gemara holds that R. Eliezer argues, and holds that Hakafah of the entire head is not called Hakafah.

Explanation: The Torah wrote Tzitzis next to Kil'ayim, to teach that the Aseh of Tzitzis overrides the Lav of Kil'ayim.

Support: Based on this, we can answer [a difficulty]. In Yevamos (5a), the Gemara was unable to learn that an Aseh is Docheh a Lav alone that is Shavah b'Chol from Rosho and Zekano. Here, it is obvious to Rabanan that it is Docheh, without Tzitzis!

Note: In Defus Vinitziya, Birkas Rosh and Be'eros ha'Mayim, this (DH Yalif) is not a new Dibur. It is the end of the previous Dibur (DH v'R. Eliezer). "Based on this", i.e. what Tosfos said above, that R. Eliezer holds that Hakafah of the entire head is not called Hakafah, we can resolve the Sugyos.

Now, this is fine. The Sugya in Yevamos wanted to say that we need "Rosho" to teach that Hakafas Kol ha'Rosh is considered Hakafah. Therefore, we cannot prove from it that Aseh Docheh Lo Sa'aseh [ha'Shavah b'Chol] through Im Eino Inyan [just like R. Eliezer cannot learn from Im Eino Inyan, for if he had nothing else to learn from Rosho, he would learn from it that Hakafas Kol ha'Rosh is considered Hakafah. Therefore, he must learn from Tzitzis];

However, here we hold like the Sugya below (58a), that [Rabanan] know from reasoning that Hakafas Kol ha'Rosh is considered Hakafah.