Nazir 46B

ומי מעכבא? והתניא: ״זאת תורת הנזיר״, בין שיש לו כפים, בין שאין לו כפים!

The Talmud raises a difficulty against R' Eliezer’s opinion: And does a lack of waving preclude the performance of the purification ritual of a nazirite? But isn’t it taught in a baraita (Tosefta 1:5): The inclusive phrase: “This is the law of the nazirite,” (Numbers 6:21) teaches that all nazirites are bound by the same halakha, whether he has palms, or whether he does not have palms. Since one who is lacking palms certainly cannot wave, this indicates that waving is not essential.

ואלא הא דתניא: ״זאת תורת הנזיר״, בין שיש לו שער, בין שאין לו שער ⁠— הכי נמי דלא מעכבא? והתניא: נזיר ממורט, בית שמאי אומרים: אינו צריך להעביר תער על ראשו, ובית הלל אומרים: צריך להעביר תער על ראשו.

The Talmud refutes this proof: But what about that which is taught in a similar baraita (Tosefta 1:5): “This is the law of the nazirite” whether he has hair or whether he does not have hair; so too, will you explain that lack of shaving does not preclude the ritual in the case of one who has no hair? But isn’t it taught in a baraita (Tosefta 1:6): With regard to an entirely bald nazirite, who cannot shave his hair with a razor as required, Beit Shammai say: He need not pass a razor over his head, and Beit Hillel say: He must pass a razor over his head.

ואמר רבינא: מאי ״אינו צריך״ לבית שמאי: אינו צריך ⁠— אין לו תקנה. הא לבית הלל יש לו תקנה!

And Ravina said: What is the meaning of the term: Need not, stated by Beit Shammai? It means that he need not shave, and he has no remedy, and he has no way to complete his naziriteship. This indicates that according to Beit Hillel he does have a remedy, i.e., he can pass a razor over his head and thereby fulfill the mitzva, despite the fact that he does not have any hair. Similarly, one can say that R' Eliezer holds that waving is indispensable, and when the baraita states: Whether he has palms or whether he does not have palms, could mean that waving is indispensable.