during the course of our shiurim, we asked whether the nazir must shave his head alone (i.e the top of his head) or also his beard. [i think that the gemara's discussion of the contradiction between lo sakifu and the nazir does not shed any light on this.) the question is not only whether he must shave his beard at the end but also whether the issur of shaving also applies to the beard. we assume that the issur and the requirement to shave go hand in hand, and there is indeed support from this from the gemara's discussion of whether the hair grows from the bottom or from the top, where the gemara says he must shave what he grew for nezirus. we could not find any reference to this in the gemara or the poskim. we only found a question submitted to the rashba in which he says that the nazir does not have to shave his beard and he himself says that there is no specific statement about this in the gemara. i however found that the sifrei says that we learn the issur of shaving for an avel from the gezeira shava pera-pera from nazir (the use of the gezeira shava in the parallel gemara is somewhat different and not a direct proof), and since we know (although i have no independent source) that the avel does not shave his beard, then the word pera must also mean a beard, and the nazir presumably must grow and then shave his beard. do you have any other source [gemara etc. or rishonim, i know that some acharonim talk about this, but they don't get much further than the rashba.]??
sorry to put so many questions to you at one time. i just found out tonight that you can submit questions on this site.
thank you for your help.
dmartin, raanana, eretz yisroel
Allow me to refer you to a previous reader's question and our answer.
>>Mark Bergman asked:
From the contrast of the psukim regarding Nozir and Metzora, it appears that
the Issur of a Nozir's haircut may only be the hair on top of his head,and
not his beard. (Regarding Metzora, the Torah states "Es Rosho V'Es
Zekono...").
The Kollel replied:
You are correct: both the Gidul and the Tiglachas of the Nazir relate only to his head and not to his beard. I do not think we need a proof that "Rosh Nizro" does not include his beard, for, as you stated, "Rosho" by Metzora means only head and not beard. If we need a proof, then see 57b where the Gemara asks how can a Nazir perform Tiglachas mi'Safek -- he will transgress the Isur of Bal Takifu (shaving the Pe'os). The Gemara does not ask that he will transgress the Isur of Bal Tashchisu (shaving the beard). So, too, the Gemara which wants to derive the principle of "Aseh Docheh Lo Ta'aseh v'Aseh" from Kohen-Metzora could have learned from Nazir-Metzora. But as I wrote, I feel that these proofs are unnecessary; Nezer means crown, Rosh means head (not face).<<
Dov Zupnik
Thank you for your answer re the nazir shaving his head alone or also beard. however, you did not relate to my seemingly contrary proof from pera-pera.
Obviously, "Pera-Pera" is merely an Asmachta for the Din of Tispores of an Avel is only mid'Rabanan. Rashi in Yevamos 43a and the Or Zaru'a (Aveilus 446) seem to say that the Limud from Nazir is how long one must let the hair grow, and not the Halachah (of which hair to grow) itself.
D.Z.
as it happens, the gemara relies on pera-pera also for the length of the issur tiglachas - i.e. 30 days. i agree that this is an asmachta to some extent, but we must not forget that it is the torah which says rasheichem al tifrau, so the torah knew about the "pera" of an avel as well.you are suggesting that the pera-pera is an asmachta to compare an issur rosh to an issur rosh and zakan. it's a little bit like apples and oranges. in any case, as i mentioned in an earlier e-mail today, the zohar clearly says it's the zakan as well.
Your analogy with regard to the other usage of "Pera-Pera" is inaccurate (it is like comparing apples and oranges to apples alone). As for the Zohar, "Ein Lanu Esek b'Nistaros." It stills seems to me that the Da'as of our Shas is clear.
D. Zupnik
If you look in the Zohar (Naso 127a), you will see that it does not contradict the Gemara that implies that he does not have to grow the beard. It is explaining that masculine traits represent Rachamim, and feminine traits represent Din. The Zohar points out that the Nazir is a "Nezir Elokim," he is removed from Din, and is related to Rachamim. That is why he refrains from grapes and wine which represent Din (see Mishnah in Sanhedrin (70b)). The growth of hair is considered a masculine trait, for men grow more hair (in more places) than women. That is why the Nazir, who is connected to the masculine trait, must grow the hair of his head and his beard (and the Kohanim who are also connected to the Midah of Rachamim have an extra Mitzvas Aseh not to shave the beard), and the Levi'im -- who are connected to the Midah of Din -- are required to shave all of their hair upon being inaugurated into the service of Levi'im.
The Zohar is saying that a Nazir, unlike every other man who is commanded only to grow his beard (because of the Lav of Gilu'ach and Hakafah), is commanded not only to grow his beard but also the hair on his head as well, making him more connected to the masculine element of Rachamim. The reason the Zohar mentions the beard is simply to bring an example from the beard to the relationship between growing hair and masculinity. It does not mean that the Nazir is not allowed to shave his beard, but that every man is not allowed to shave his beard. The Nazir may, however, shave his beard in a way that is permissible, that will not transgress the Lav of Gilu'ach.
M. Kornfeld