Nazir 58: When a Positive Mitzvah Overrides a Prohibition; Sex and Body Hair

In their discussion about rounding the corners of one's head, the rabbis discuss the competing mitzvot.  Numbers 6:5 teaches that "...No razor shall touch his head... He shall be sacred, he shall let the locks of his hair grow long" [regarding a nazirite].  Might this refer to a metzora, a leper, as well?  We learn that  "He shall shave all his hair; his head" overrides the mitzvah of Numbers 6:5 when it comes to a metzora.  And what about a nazirite who is also a metzora?

To figure out whether a positive mitzvah overrides a prohibition in this sort of complicated case, the rabbis first look at the prohibition regarding mixing diverse kinds (Deuteronomy 22:11) and the tallit.  While we are prohibited from mixing wool and linen, we are also commanded to put include a dyed sky-blue thread to the fringes of each corner of the tallit.  Fringes are permitted to be of diverse kinds - wool and linen.  However, the tzitzit should also be of the same material as the corner of the garment - we are both prohibited from and permitted to mix diverse kinds in the case of a tallit.

Does a positive mitzvah override  a prohibition and a positive mitva together?  Sometimes one's status will determine whether or not this is the case.  Priest sometimes are held to different stringency than others. 

The rabbis discuss some of the difference between destroying, hashchata and shaving, giluach.  A razor meets both definitions.  However, tweezing hair and using depilatories will destroy hair without shaving it.  We learn about hair removal through the use of a pumice stone, as well. While the rabbis use their arguments to better understand the halachot of metzorim and nazirites when it comes to removing the hair from their heads, I am more interested in another argument.

The rabbis mention that men cannot remove the hair from under their arms nor can they remove their pubic hair.  This is because of a rabbinical extension of the prohibition in Deuteronomy (22:5) "A man shall not put on a woman's garment."  We learn that some rabbis believe that men are permitted to "lessen [their] burden[s]" by removing all other body hair via use of a razor.  Others believe that men should be flogged for rebelliousness regarding a rabbinic prohibition.  Through this interpretation we can make a number of assumptions:

• one's body hair is akin to one's garments
• women removed the hair under their arms and around their genitals
• removal of underarm and pubic hair was considered a 'feminine' behaviour and/or adornment
• flogging for such a transgression implies a serious attempt to manage such behaviours
• flogging of a man who recently shaved would be particularly cruel punishment
• we do not know if similar halachot would apply to those considered to be a tumtum or an androginos

As the rabbis were very concerned with creating strict categories to manage the behaviour of all Jews, halachot regarding gender are some of the most hotly debated.  What were the rabbis afraid of?  Perhaps our mitzvot meant to distinguish only the clothing of men and women for the sake of safety or health purposes in a certain context.  Why did the rabbis find it necessary to interpret differences in sex with such sharp precision?  Did they believe that these threads might pull apart the web of Torah?  Or were they unconsciously recreating a societal structure that seemed to be 'normal' and 'right'?  Their decisions, while potentially a useful tool of societal order and control, have caused tremendous pain for countless individuals and families.