==========

FOOTNOTES:

==========

(1) The reason why Rebbi Eliezer does not learn that the verse is referring to a normal, male Metzora, and is permitting Hakafas ha'Rosh, is because he holds that Hakafah of the entire head is not considered Hakafah. Alternatively, he holds that Hakafah of the entire head is considered Hakafah, but he already knows from "Gedilim" that Aseh Docheh Lo Ta'aseh, and therefore a normal Metzora is permitted to do Hakafas ha'Rosh. (TOSFOS 41a, DH Rosho, and 41b, DH v'Rebbi Eliezer)

(2) It is also teaching that Aseh Docheh Lo Ta'aseh v'Aseh even when the Isur cannot be annulled through "She'eilah" -- as opposed to Nezirus (TOSFOS 41b, end of DH v'Iy).

(3) According to the Rabanan, the point of the verse is to permit a Metzora to do what would normally be a transgression of the Lav of Hakafah.

(4) The Rabanan hold that the Lav of shaving the beard applies only to shaving with a Ta'ar.

(5) This is the conclusion of the Gemara in Yevamos. It seems that this is also the intention of the Sugya in Nazir (41b). (When the Gemara asks according to Rebbi Eliezer from where do we learn Aseh Docheh Lo Ta'aseh, it is asking from where Rebbi Eliezer learns that at least when the Lav is Shaveh ba'Kol, Aseh is Docheh Lo Ta'aseh. The Rabanan learn this from "Rosho" of Metzora.)

(6) The Sugya later (58a) holds that we know that Hakafah of the entire head is considered Hakafah from logic, both according to the Rabanan and according to Rebbi Eliezer. As such, the verse of "Rosho" is not needed to teach that. Similarly, the verse of "Rosho" is not needed to teach that the Gilu'ach of a Metzora overrides either the Lav of Hakafas ha'Rosh or the Lav and Aseh of shaving a Nazir's head, which are all Eino Shaveh ba'Kol, because we already learn from the verse of "Zekano" that Aseh Docheh Lo Ta'aseh v'Aseh which are not Shavim ba'Kol. Therefore, perforce we must say that the point of "Rosho" is not to teach that a Mitzvas Aseh overrides a Lav which is not Shaveh ba'Kol (the Lav of Hakafas ha'Rosh), but rather that a Mitzvas Aseh is Docheh even a Lav which is Shaveh ba'Kol ("Im Eino Inyan..."). (TOSFOS 41b, DH v'Rebbi Eliezer, in the name of the R"M; TOSFOS Yevamos 5a, DH Mah)

(7) This Maskanah of the Gemara in Nazir 58a matches the Havah Amina in Yevamos 4b.

(8) So writes TOSFOS (41b, DH v'Iy). (Tosfos there reasons that if the verse would not be referring to a Metzora-Nazir as well as a normal male Metzora, then we would not know that the Torah permits the Gilu'ach of a Metzora- Nazir. We could not deduce that his Gilu'ach is permitted from the verse that permits the Gilu'ach of a Metzora-Kohen, since Gilu'ach of a Metzora-Nazir involves more stringent Isurim: two, rather than one, Lo Ta'aseh's (Nazir, Hakafah), at least one of which is considered Shaveh ba'Kol (the Lo Ta'aseh of Nazir according to the Gemara on 58b; see Tosfos.) Note, however, that according to what we quoted from Tosfos earlier (in footnote #6) it seems that the Gilu'ach of Metzora-Nazir may indeed be learned from the Gilu'ach of a Metzora-Kohen, at least according to the Rabanan of Rebbi Eliezer in the Sugya of Nazir 58b!)