Implied question: [It should be forbidden to cut the Pe'os first, because] it is possible to fulfill both, e.g. to shave the rest of the head [first, and the Pe'os at the end]!

Answer: Even so, the Aseh of v'Gilach overrides [the Lav of Hakafah].

Explanation: We ask from Reish Lakish's teaching [that when it is possible to fulfill both, an Aseh is not Docheh a Lav]... and retract to say that rather, all agree that [Hakafas Kol ha'Rosh] is considered Hakafah;

The one who establishes Rosho to teach that it overrides a Lav and an Aseh, i.e. for a Nazir, about whom it says "Ta'ar Lo Ya'avor Al Rosho" and "Kadosh Yihyeh", this is because he knows that it overrides a Lav alone from Gedilim (Tzitzis, which overrides Sha'atnez);

[We ask,] the one who establishes Rosho to teach [that it overrides] a Lav alone, why doesn't he learn from Gedilim?

He does not need a verse to teach that Hakafas Kol ha'Rosh is considered Hakafah. Now we hold that we know this from reasoning. Because he added to shave [the rest of the head], should he not be liable for the Pe'os?!

This is just like the one who establishes [Rosho to teach about] a Lav and an Aseh, i.e. for a Nazir, he knows from reasoning that [Hakafas Kol ha'Rosh] is considered Hakafah.

This is unlike the initial Havah Amina, that we need a verse to teach that Hakafas Kol ha'Rosh is considered Hakafah.

Explanation: [We ask what is this Tana's source that Aseh Docheh Lav v'Aseh] when [the Lav and Aseh] are not Shavah b'Chol? [We answer that] he learns from Zekano, like the Gemara proceeds to explain.

Question: Why is it obvious to the Gemara that it overrides?

Answer: If you think that Aseh is not Docheh Lav v'Aseh when they are not Shavah b'Chol, if so, according to the opinion that establishes Rosho for a mere Lav, and does not expound Gedilim [to teach that Aseh Docheh Lo Sa'aseh]...

We hold everywhere that an Aseh is Docheh a mere Lav, even if [the Lav] is Shavah b'Chol. What is the source of this?

We cannot learn from Hakafah, for it is not Shavah b'Chol (women are exempt)! Rather, surely we do not need [Rosho] for the law itself [that Tiglachas Metzora overrides Hakafah], for [an Aseh] is Docheh even a Lav v'Aseh when they are not Shavah b'Chol, like the Gemara proceeds to explain regarding Zekano;

If so, Rosho regarding Hakafah is superfluous. Im Eino Inyan for [a Lav] that is not Shavah b'Chol, Tenehu Inyan for [a Lav that is] Shavah b'Chol.

Because it is obvious to us, we ask what is the source that Aseh Docheh Lav v'Aseh when they are not Shavah b'Chol.

Observation: [In] the Sugya in Yevamos (5a), the Gemara holds like our Sugya held in the Havah Amina, that Rosho comes to teach this itself, that Hakafas Kol ha'Rosh is considered Hakafah;

This is unlike the conclusion of our Sugya, that we know this from reasoning, like I explained.

Explanation: [We learn from Zekano] written regarding a Metzora. What does [Zekano] come to teach? [It is extra, for] it already says "v'Gilach Es Kol Se'aro"!

Citation of Gemara: Perhaps ["Lo Yegalechu"] applies even to a Kohen Metzora!

Explanation: He has a Lav of shaving, and an Aseh "Kedoshim Yihyu."

Implied question: It says "v'Gilach Es Kol Se'aro"! (If the Aseh does not override them, how do we fulfill the verse?)

Answer: We establish it to discuss one whose corners [of his beard] fell out.

Note: Seemingly, this was not difficult. It could discuss a Yisrael or woman! Why must we fulfill this regarding a Kohen?

Observation: Now, we could have asked why we do not learn from Nazir [Metzora] to everywhere, that an Aseh overrides a Lav and an Aseh, even if they are Shavah b'Chol, for Nazir is Shavah b'Chol;

According to the conclusion, this is fine, for we ask below that we cannot learn from Nazir, for it can be permitted through She'elah.

Observation: There was no need for the Gemara to say this ("according to the opinion that establishes Rosho for a Nazir") for we are discussing his opinion!

Also, there was no need to change from the expression used above "according to the one who uses Rosho for an Aseh and Lo Sa'aseh."

Citation of Gemara: He needs it like the Beraisa teaches.

Explanation: It teaches that Tiglachas Metzora is with a razor;

We cannot learn from Rosho of Nazir, for he holds like the opinion above (40a) that a Nazir is liable for all matters that remove. Therefore, he needs Zekano to teach that shaving the beard is only with a razor, like it proceeds to explain.

Question: When we ask why Zekano is needed, why didn't we respond "and according to you, this that we hold that an Aseh is not Docheh a Lav and an Aseh. We should learn from Nazir Metzora that it is Docheh!"

Rather, you must say that we cannot learn from Nazir, for it can be permitted through She'elah. (This answers why we cannot learn from Nazir that an Aseh overrides a Lav and an Aseh!)

Explanation: It should write Zekano alone. This connotes both the beard of a Kohen, and of a Yisrael;

We learn from this a mere Lav for a Yisrael, and we learn from it a Lav and an Aseh for Kohanim, for the Torah discusses every case.

Implied question: Also Rosho discusses every case. We should not establish it to discuss only a regular head, and not a Nazir's head!

Answer: There is different, for they are two Lavim - the Lav of Hakafah, and the Lav of "Ta'ar Lo Ya'avor Al Rosho." Therefore, it is unreasonable to say to such an extent "the Torah discusses every case", to establish it even for a Nazir's head;

However, shaving the beard is all one Lav, both regarding Yisrael "Lo Sashchis Pe'as Zekanecha", and regarding Kohanim "u'Fe'as Zekanam Lo Yegalechu";

Therefore, it is proper to say "the Torah discusses every case", that the Aseh of Metzora "Zekano" overrides both the Lav of Yisrael, and the Lav of Zekanam, since they are one warning.

Observation: Now we could answer that if [we tried to learn from] Zekano, we could challenge this, for [the Lav of shaving] is not Shavah b'Chol. It does not apply to women;

We need Rosho. Im Eino Inyan for a Lav that is not Shavah b'Chol, Tenehu Inyan for a Lav ha'Shavah b'Chol.

It seems that we are thinking that these are equal (equally reasonable to learn). Therefore, he holds that a mere Lav that is Shavah b'Chol is as stringent as a Lav and an Aseh that is not Shavah b'Chol.

However, he elaborated more, for since he wanted to ask this question, he went and asked all possible questions.

Explanation: He answered that we cannot learn Kohen from Nazir, because [Nazir] can be permitted through She'elah. We cannot learn Nazir from Kohen, because [Isurei Kehunah] are not Shavah b'Chol.

We do not learn from them to elsewhere, because we can challenge like we said.

Question #1 (Maharam): Why did we say "we cannot learn Kohen from Nazir [because there is She'elah]"? We should say that we need Kohen due to Ta'ar, [to teach] that a Metzora must shave with a razor, like we said!

Question #2 (Maharam): We ask according to the opinion that Rosho teaches a mere Lav, and answer him according to the opinion that Rosho comes to teach about a Nazir, for he said "we cannot learn Kohen from Nazir"!

Answer (Maharam): Now he understands like we conclude, that Zekano comes to teach a razor;

Now, according to the opinion that Rosho teaches a mere Lav, what is the source that a Nazir Metzora and a Kohen Metzora shave?

Rather, you are forced to say that the verse applies in every case. Since the verse is written Stam, it applies in every case, even if he is a regular Kohen or a Nazir. Why do we need Zekano?

Question: We properly need Zekano to teach that Tiglachas Metzora is with a razor!

Answer: We ask why the Tana above brought Zekano to teach that a Kohen Metzora may shave, since it says Zekano. What does this teach...?

We learn from Rosho that even a Nazir Metzora shaves his head, even though there is a Lav and an Aseh, for the Torah wrote Stam, and this implies that also a Kohen [Metzora] shaves his beard;

Now he holds that according to this Tana, they are equal.

Answer (cont.): He answers that indeed, surely he holds that the Torah teaches about every case. We learn from Rosho alone that also a Nazir Metzora shaves his head;

Even so, had the Torah not written Zekano, we would not know a Kohen like it explains, because She'elah applies [to Nazir];

Had the Torah written [only] Zekano, we would not know Nazir, because [a Kohen's] Lav is not Shavah b'Chol.

Answer (cont.): According to this conclusion, the Tana who establishes Rosho for a mere Lav, we learn from it also a Lav and an Aseh.

Implied question: Why did it mention only the Lav of Hakafah?

Answer: This reveals to us his opinion, that if not for these verses of Rosho and Zekano, we would not know even a mere Lav, that an Aseh overrides it, for we would establish the verse of Gedilim like Rava.

Citation of Gemara: We do not learn [from them] to elsewhere, like we said.

Explanation: I.e. we can ask we cannot learn from Kohen, because his Lav is not Shavah b'Chol. We cannot learn from Nazir, because there is She'elah.

Question: We should learn from both of them, through Tzad ha'Shavah!

Answer (Ri): We can ask that the Aseh of Metzora is different, for there is Shalom Bayis. (He must shave in order to become permitted to his wife);

We say like this in Chulin (141a). One might have thought that the Aseh [done with] Tziporei Metzora overrides the Lav and an Aseh of Shilu'ach ha'Kan, due to Shalom Bayis.

Implied question: We challenge [R. Yochanan] from the Beraisa that says that removing hair (in these areas) is not mid'Oraisa. It is forbidden only mid'Rabanan. We could have supported him from the Beraisa above [that a man who shaves his underarms or the genital area is lashed]!

Answer: We prefer to answer that one is lashed mid'Rabanan; the Beraisos do not argue with each other.

Assertion: R. Yochanan forbids even with a scissors. It connotes that he argues with Rav.