Our Gemara on Amud Beis quotes several verses in the Torah that serve as the source for the prohibition against shaving one’s beard with a razor, or possibly in a razor like fashion, depending on how it is interpreted by various poskim. 

There are two sets of verses that discuss prohibition, one having to do specifically with the Cohanim, and the other applied to all Jews. Halakhically, there is no distinction and our Gemara uses the text from each of the prohibitions to teach and derive details, regarding the nature, and extent of the prohibition. 

By the Cohanim it states (Vayikra 21:1-5) 

Say to the Cohanim, sons of Aharon…לֹֽא־[יִקְרְח֤וּ] (יקרחה) קׇרְחָה֙ בְּרֹאשָׁ֔ם וּפְאַ֥ת זְקָנָ֖ם לֹ֣א יְגַלֵּ֑חוּ וּבִ֨בְשָׂרָ֔ם לֹ֥א יִשְׂרְט֖וּ שָׂרָֽטֶת׃

They shall not shave smooth any part of their heads, or cut the side-growth of their beards, or make gashes in their flesh.

By the prohibitions stated to the Jewish people as a whole, it says (Vayikra 19:27):

לֹ֣א תַקִּ֔פוּ פְּאַ֖ת רֹאשְׁכֶ֑ם וְלֹ֣א תַשְׁחִ֔ית אֵ֖ת פְּאַ֥ת זְקָנֶֽךָ׃

You [men] shall not round off the side-growth on your head, or destroy the side-growth of your beard.

Note that the prohibition by the Cohanim uses a language of “Giluach”, which is the Hebrew word for cutting hair. While by the general prohibition a language of “Hashchasa” is used, which means to destroy. This would seem to imply specifically a razor, as it cuts down to the root. As we mentioned, our Gemara uses both languages to teach that it must be a razor and a kind of cut that is destroying to the root.

However, notwithstanding the halakhic derashos, the commentaries who focus on pashut peshat point out the difference and the clear indication that the Cohen is held to a higher standard. According to a pashut peshat reading of the verses, a Cohen would be forbidden to perform any kind of hair cutting, even a small amount, because it would amount to a “destruction” of some hair. (See Ha’amek Davar and Rav Yosef Bechor Shor.)

The idea that a pashut peshat reading has different implications than the halakha is not really as problematic as it seems. The Rashbam famously says in Shemos (13:9) that the pashut peshat in the verse in Shema that the words should be a sign on your arms, is not about Tefilin, but a metaphor for keeping a constant awareness. It would be like someone saying today, “Keep it on your Home Screen.”

Even when a verse’s simple reading absolutely contradicts the halakha there are ways to understand them in harmony. For example, the Maharal (Gur Aryeh Vayikra 24:20 says that the Torah uses the expression, “Eye for an eye” to stress that if the person does not make financial compensation, really, in some fundamental way, he ought to be liable physically, with an eye for an eye.  Rambam in the Moreh (III:41) seems to say the same idea, though he is more cryptic and might mean to say even more, but that is for a different essay.

What we can say is that though every Jew should conduct himself as a Cohen, as it states in Shemos (19:5), “You shall be a kingdom of priests”, there is an even greater expectation on the Cohanim to hold a higher standard. Just like the Peshuto shel mikra tells us that one SHOULD feel as if he is physically liable for causing the loss of a limb, the repetition of various prohibitions on the Cohanim is to stress how much greater a standard they should strive to keep.

Additionally, the intention of the verses are relative. That is to say, perhaps Cohen holds a higher standard in comparison to a regular Jew, but the Jewish person who is part of a kingdom of Cohanim holds to a higher standard relative to other nations of the world. There is truth to the archetypal pattern that when one comes from a more respected lineage, there is expectation of higher moral standards and sensitivity.

Translations Courtesy of Sefaria, except when, sometimes, I disagree with the translation

Do you like what you see? Please subscribe and also forward any articles you enjoy to your friends, (enemies too, why not?)