אֵין קׇרְבָּנוֹ בְּדַלּוּת תֹּאמַר בִּמְצוֹרָע שֶׁקׇּרְבָּנוֹ בְּדַלּוּת the offering in each case does not include a level of poverty. In both cases the offering is fixed, i.e., a poor person does not have the option of bringing a less expensive offering due to his financial straits. Will you say the same with regard to the leper, whose offering includes a level of poverty, as a poor person can bring turtledoves instead of sheep (Leviticus 14:21–22)? Since the Torah was more lenient in the case of a leper than the cases of a nazirite and the Levites, it could also be that the halakha is also lenient with regard to his shaving, by not demanding the use of a razor. Consequently, there is no proof that a leper is obligated to shave with a razor.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא בַּר מְשַׁרְשְׁיָא לְרָבָא הַאי תַּנָּא מֵעִיקָּרָא אָמַר לְלׇמְדוֹ מִמְּצוֹרָע אִי אֶפְשָׁר שֶׁאֵין דָּנִין קַל מֵחָמוּר לְהַחְמִיר עָלָיו וַהֲדַר אָמַר נֵילַף מִדִּינָא וּמִדִּינָא נָמֵי לָא יָלֵיף In continuation of this discussion, Rava bar Mesharshiyya said to Rava: This tanna initially said, with regard to the obligation of a nazirite to shave with a razor (39b): It is impossible to learn this requirement from the halakha that a leper must use a razor, as one does not derive a halakha in a lenient case from the halakha in a more stringent one in a manner that would cause one to be stringent in the more lenient case. This indicates that it is obvious to the tanna that a leper himself must shave with a razor. And he then said: Let us derive by means of an inference that a leper must use a razor, and ultimately he did not derive it from an inference by analogy either, due to Rava of Barnish’s objection. What, then, is the source for the halakha that a leper must use a razor?
אֲמַר לֵיהּ הָהוּא אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבָּנַן הָא אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר דִּתְנַן וְאֵינוֹ חַיָּיב עַד שֶׁיְּלַקְּטֶנּוּ בְּתַעַר רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר אֲפִילּוּ לִיקְּטוֹ בְּמַלְקֵט וּבְרָהִיטְנֵי חַיָּיב Rava said to Rava bar Mesharshiyya: That baraita, which states that one cannot derive the halakha from the case of a leper, which indicates that it is evident that a leper must shave with a razor, is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. They derive the halakha of a leper’s shaving from the prohibition against destroying one’s beard. Conversely, this source, which attempted to derive the shaving of a leper from that of a nazirite and the Levites, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who does not derive the halakha of a leper’s shaving from the prohibition against destroying one’s beard. Rabbi Eliezer must therefore derive this halakha by analogy from the cases of a nazirite and the Levites. This is as we learned in a mishna (Makkot 20a): And one is liable for destroying his beard only if he removes it with a razor. Rabbi Eliezer says: Even if he removed it with small tweezers or a plane [rehitni] he is liable. Rabbi Eliezer maintains that one violates the prohibition even by destroying his beard with means other than a razor.
מַאי טַעְמַיְיהוּ דְּרַבָּנַן דְּתַנְיָא זְקָנוֹ מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר לְפִי שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר וּפְאַת זְקָנָם לֹא יְגַלֵּחוּ יָכוֹל אֲפִילּוּ מְצוֹרָע כֵּן תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר זְקָנוֹ The Gemara asks: What is the reason of the Rabbis; how do they derive from this halakha that a leper must shave with a razor? As it is taught in a baraita that the verse states with regard to the shaving of a leper: “He shall shave all his hair off his head and his beard” (Leviticus 14:9). Since the verse states: “All his hair,” what is the meaning when the verse states: “His beard”? It is because it is stated with regard to priests: “Neither shall they shave off the corners of their beards” (Leviticus 21:5). One might have thought that the same should also apply to a leper, i.e. that a leper who was a priest should be prohibited from shaving his beard. For this reason the verse states: “His beard,” which emphasizes that despite the general prohibition barring a priest from shaving his beard, a priest who is a leper is obligated to do so.
וּמְנָלַן דִּבְתַעַר דְּתַנְיָא וּפְאַת זְקָנָם לֹא יְגַלֵּחוּ יָכוֹל אֲפִילּוּ גִּילְּחוֹ בְּמִסְפָּרַיִם יְהֵא חַיָּיב תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר וְלֹא תַשְׁחִית And from where do we derive that this shaving of a leper must be performed with a razor? It is as it is taught in a baraita, with regard to the prohibition against a priest shaving his beard in the verse “Neither shall they shave off the corners of their beards” (Leviticus 21:5): One might have thought that a priest should be liable even if he shaved his beard with scissors. The verse states, in the general prohibition issued to all Jewish men: “Neither shall you destroy the corners of your beard” (Leviticus 19:27). This teaches that one is liable only if he shaves in a destructive manner, by uprooting the hairs entirely, which excludes the use of scissors.
יָכוֹל לִיקְּטוֹ בְּמַלְקֵט וּבְרָהִיטְנֵי יְהֵא חַיָּיב תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר וּפְאַת זְקָנָם לֹא יְגַלֵּחוּ הָא כֵּיצַד אֵיזֶהוּ גִּילּוּחַ שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ הַשְׁחָתָה הֱוֵי אוֹמֵר זֶה תַּעַר One might have thought that even if he removed it with tweezers or planes he should be liable. The verse states: “Neither shall they shave off the corners of their beards” (Leviticus 21:5), which indicates that the priests are liable only for removing their beards in a manner of shaving. How so? What is the manner of shaving that involves destruction? You must say this is shaving with a razor. The Rabbis learn from here that the implement forbidden to a priest is the same one that must be used for the shaving of a leper, namely a razor.
מִמַּאי דִּילְמָא לְעוֹלָם אֲפִילּוּ לִיקְּטוֹ בְּמַלְקֵט וּבְרָהִיטְנֵי נָמֵי מִצְוָה קָעָבֵיד וְהָא קָאָתֵי לְאַשְׁמוֹעִינַן דַּאֲפִילּוּ בְּתַעַר לָא מִיחַיַּיב עֲלֵיהּ The Gemara asks: From where do we know that this is correct? Perhaps if a leper actually removed it with tweezers or a plane he also performs the mitzva and thereby fulfills his obligation, and this verse is coming to teach us that even if the leper shaved with a razor he is not liable for destroying his beard. In other words, one might have thought that a leper is prohibited from shaving with a razor, and the verse teaches that this is not correct. If so, there is no proof from here that the shaving of a leper must be performed with a razor.
אָמְרִי אִי סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ כִּי עָבֵיד נָמֵי בְּמַלְקֵט וּבְרָהִיטְנֵי שַׁפִּיר דָּמֵי לִישְׁתּוֹק קְרָא מִינֵּיהּ וַאֲנָא אָמֵינָא וּמָה גַּבֵּי נָזִיר דְּאִיסּוּרָא קָא עָבֵיד אֲפִילּוּ הָכִי מִחַיַּיב הָכָא דְּמִצְוָה לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן They say in response: If it should enter your mind that if a leper performs his shaving with tweezers or a plane too, it is well and he has performed the mitzva, then let the verse be silent and refrain from the extra phrase, “his beard.” And I would say the following: And just as with regard to a nazirite, who performs a transgression by shaving his hair during his naziriteship and who, even so, is deemed liable for removing hair without the use of a razor, here too, in the case of a leper, where his shaving is a mitzva, does it not follow all the more so that he should be permitted to shave with any implement?