פרשת נשא - הנזיר כמודל

(6) Throughout the term that he has set apart for the LORD, he shall not go in where there is a dead person. (7) Even if his father or mother, or his brother or sister should die, he must not defile himself for them, since hair set apart for his God is upon his head: (8) throughout his term as nazirite he is consecrated to the LORD.

(1) WHEN A MAN OR WOMAN SHALL DO ANY OF THE SINS OF MAN. [The sense of the verse] is as follows: “If a man does any of the sins by which one can transgress, of any sin which man commits against another man, and he deals falsely with his neighbor [—that soul shall be guilty].” He states [here] to commit a trespass against the Eternal, which means that he swears by His Name falsely and is thus guilty before Him [as well]. Now because this sin has already been mentioned, and here it only comes to introduce the new point concerning robbing a proselyte, He deals with it briefly. He stated here a man or woman because since it is not usual for a woman to rob, [we might think that] perhaps Scripture does not make her liable to pay the additional fifth or to bring a guilt-offering [when she confesses the sin] like a man, [therefore He stated here a man or woman, teaching that her liability is in all respects the same as that of a man]. He mentioned [here], And every heave-offering of all the holy things of the children of Israel, which they present unto the priest, shall be his, meaning to say that once they have given the heave-offering to the priest it becomes his [personal property], and he who robs it from him is to be dealt with in accordance with the law of the guilt-offering for robberies. That is the reason why He mentioned it here. Or it may be that [this verse] comes to complete the laws of the priests regarding the heave-offering, since till now He only mentioned them by way of allusion, [stating] Thou shalt not delay to offer of the fulness of thy harvest, and of the outflow of thy presses, and so also, they may eat of his bread, but He did not explain the law of the heave-offering at all, that it is to be given to the priest; and as for the tithe, He [only] mentioned at the end of Torath Kohanim [i.e., the Book of Leviticus] that it is holy unto the Eternal. Now, therefore, He came to command that the heave-offering and the holy gifts should belong to the priests by the grant of the owners, who may give them to them as they please, meaning to say that the benefit of satisfaction [of choosing to whom to give it] belongs to the owner [and the priest may not come and take it by force, since the owner may have the pleasure of giving it to any priest he chooses].The meal-offering of the sotah is not mentioned together with the other meal-offerings in Torath Kohanim [i.e., Leviticus Chapter 2] because it is a meal-offering of jealousy and does not come for atonement, therefore He completed the law thereof here [in the Book of Numbers]. Besides, since He traced the genealogy of the people by their fathers’ houses, He now gave them a law and judgment to ascertain who are the mamzerim who are not the children of their mothers’ husbands, when there arises a suspicion in a man’s heart concerning his wife.Similarly He completed here [the laws of] the offerings with the law of the Nazirite, for [only] after the Tabernacle was put up and the impure people separated from the camp, He took of their young men for Nazirites, who crowded at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, to stand before the Eternal to minister unto Him, and to bless in His name. Furthermore, a woman who makes the Nazirite vow is the opposite of the sotah, [and for this reason the law of the Nazirite follows that of the sotah]. Therefore He stated in the section [of the Nazirite], when either man ‘or woman’ utter a vow, the vow of a Nazirite. Our Rabbis have furthermore said: “Why is the section dealing with the Nazirite placed next to the section dealing with the sotah? [It is to tell us] that whoever sees a sotah in her disgrace should abstain [by means of a vow] from wine,” the reason being that harlotry, wine, and new wine, take away the heart. And [the commandment that] the Nazirite should let his hair grow loose is because this is the opposite of [the habit of] young men who curl their hair in order to beautify themselves, for allowing the hair to grow loose causes anxiety in man’s heart, and therefore the Nazirite is holy and must guard himself from impurity, for he is like the priest who ministers before his G-d [who likewise must be pure for service at the Sanctuary].

(1) 'קדוש הוא לה. He will merit the light available for those enjoying eternal life, as well as be able to instruct the spiritual leaders of his generation. This may have been what Elkanah referred to when he said: “may the Lord keep His word” (Samuel I 1,23). What he meant was that he agreed with Chanah his wife’s vow that the child she would bear would spend his life on earth as a Nazirite. He did not add any additional request regarding the child that would be born to them. If G’d would allow Chanah’s prayer and vow to come true this would be more than enough satisfaction for him.

(11) And I raised up prophets from among your sons And nazirites from among your young men. Is that not so, O people of Israel? —says the LORD.

(9) If a person dies suddenly near him, defiling his consecrated hair, he shall shave his head on the day he becomes clean; he shall shave it on the seventh day. (10) On the eighth day he shall bring two turtledoves or two pigeons to the priest, at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting. (11) The priest shall offer one as a sin offering and the other as a burnt offering, and make expiation on his behalf for the guilt that he incurred through the corpse. That same day he shall reconsecrate his head

(1) FOR HIS FATHER, OR FOR HIS MOTHER. And certainly not for his wife, his daughter, and others. Some say that the word nazir (Nazirite) is related to the word nezer (crown). Because his consecration (nezer) unto God is upon his head is proof of this. This interpretation is not farfetched. Note that most people are slaves to worldly lusts. The true king, the one who has a crown, the one who wears the royal diadem, is the person who is free from this lust. (1) VERY SUDDENLY. The words peta and pitom are close in meaning. The same applies to admat afar (dust of the earth) (Dan. 12:2). (2) AND HE DEFILE. The corpse will defile him. (3) IN THE DAY OF HIS CLEANSING. By the waters of purification, for he was defiled by a corpse. (1) ONE FOR A SIN-OFFERING AND THE OTHER FOR A BURNT-OFFERING. Its secret was explained by the sages. They said that the reward of sin is sin. (2) FOR THAT HE SINNED BY REASON OF THE BODY. The reference is to a dead body. Compare the word nefesh (body) in Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for a body (Lev. 19:28). If the sin referred to a sin committed against his very own body, then Scripture would not command him to return to his sin.

Even if you say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, it can be argued that when Rabbi Yehuda said that it is good to take a vow and fulfill it, he said it with regard to a gift offering, but he did not say it with regard to vows. The Gemara asks: But isn’t the mishna teaching that according to Rabbi Yehuda, better than both this and that is one who vows [noder] and pays, which indicates that he says this even about vows? The Gemara answers: Teach the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda with the following, emended formulation: Better than both this and that is one who volunteers [nodev] a gift offering and pays it. The Gemara asks: What is different about one who vows, i.e., one who says: It is incumbent upon me to bring an offering, which is not proper to do due to the concern that perhaps he will encounter a stumbling block and not bring it promptly, thereby violating the prohibition against delaying? One should also not designate a particular animal as a gift offering, due to the concern that perhaps he will encounter a stumbling block with it. The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yehuda conforms to his standard line of reasoning, as he said explicitly in a baraita: A person brings his lamb to the Temple courtyard and consecrates it there, and immediately leans on it and slaughters it. Consequently, there is no concern that he will encounter a stumbling block. The Gemara asks: That works out well with regard to voluntary gifts in the context of offerings, but with regard to the volun-tary acceptance of naziriteship, what is there to say? There is still room for concern that one will not fulfill the obligations incumbent upon him as a nazirite. The Gemara answers: Here, too, Rabbi Yehuda conforms to his standard line of reasoning, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda says: The early generations of pious men would desire to bring a sin-offering but did not have the opportunity to do so because the Holy One, Blessed be He, does not bring about a stumbling block through them, and they would not sin even unwittingly. What would they do? They would rise and volunteer naziriteship to the Omnipresent in order to be liable to bring a sin-offering of a nazirite to the Omnipresent. Rabbi Shimon says: They did not take a vow of naziriteship. Rather, one who would want to bring a burnt-offering would volunteer and bring it; one who would want to bring a peace-offering would volunteer and bring it; and one who would want to bring a thanks-offering and its four types of bread would volunteer and bring them. However, they did not volunteer naziriteship in order that they not be called sinners. According to Rabbi Shimon, naziriteship involves some element of sin, as it is stated: “And he shall make atonement for him, for that he sinned against the soul” (Numbers 6:11). § Abaye said: Shimon HaTzaddik, Rabbi Shimon, and Rabbi Elazar HaKappar are all of the same opinion, that a nazirite is a sinner. The statements of Shimon HaTzaddik and Rabbi Shimon in this regard are that which we already said. And Rabbi Elazar HaKappar the Distinguished agrees, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Elazar HaKappar the Distinguished says: It is written with regard to the priest who sacrificed the offering of a nazirite: “And he shall make atonement for him, for that he sinned against the soul.” Against which soul did the nazirite sin? Rather, his sin is that he caused himself suffering by refraining from wine. Are these matters not inferred a fortiori: Just as this nazirite, who causes himself suffering only by refraining from wine, is called a sinner, one who causes himself suffering by refraining from everything is all the more so to be considered a sinner. From here it can be derived that whoever fasts unnecessarily is called a sinner. The Gemara raises a question with regard to the opinion of Rabbi Elazar HaKappar. Isn’t this verse written with regard to a ritually impure nazirite? Consequently, only a nazirite who becomes impure shall be considered a sinner. The Gemara answers: Rabbi Elazar HaKappar holds that the verse uses this terminology with regard to a ritually impure nazirite because he repeated his sin. However, becoming a nazirite is itself considered a sin. MISHNA: In the case of one who says to another that a certain object is konam, konaḥ, or konas, these expressions are substitutes for the term offering [korban], and the vow takes effect. Ḥerek, ḥerekh and ḥeref; these are substitutes for the term indicating a dedication [ḥerem] to the Temple treasury. Nazik, naziaḥ, and paziaḥ; these are substitutes for the term naziriteship [nazir]. Shevuta, shekuka, or one who vows with the term mohi, these are substitutes for the term oath [shevua]. GEMARA: It was stated that amora’im disagreed about substitutes for the language of vows. Rabbi Yoḥanan said: They are terms from a language of other nations that mean offering, dedication, naziriteship, or oath. Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: These terms employ language that the Sages devised [badu] with which one can take a vow. In order to explain the word badu, he adds: And so it states with regard to Jeroboam: “In the month that he had devised [bada] in his own heart” (I Kings 12:33). And according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, what is the reason that the Sages established substitutes for the language of vows? The Gemara answers: It is so that one not explicitly say the term offering. The Gemara asks: And let him say the term offering; what is wrong with that? The Gemara answers: Perhaps he will say: An offering to the Lord. The Gemara asks: And let him say: An offering to the Lord. The Gemara answers: Perhaps he will say: To the Lord, and he will then change his mind and not say: An offering, and he will thereby express the name of Heaven in vain. And similarly, it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon says:

(2) From the root of the commandment, I have already written an introduction at the beginning of the book that there being something in the world of the Holy One, blessed be He, that combines physicality and intellect - and that is Man - was something fitting and necessary for His praise, blessed be He, to come up properly from His creatures; that with this creature, there would not be lacking any possibilities, which we have in our minds to grasp, from His world, etc., as I wrote there. And there is no doubt that without this reason that obligates our intellect to dwell within the physical, [which is involved with] desire and sin, it would have been fitting for our intellect to stand and serve in front of our Creator and to recognize His honor like one of the 'sons of God' that are stationed with Him. However, because of this obligation, it is subjugated to live in physical houses. And since it is subjugated to this, it must occasionally veer from the service of its Creator to tend to the needs of its home where it lives. For a home's structure and its lumber and its stones cannot stand without a person minding it. If so, as the intention of man's creation was according to what we have said, whenever the intellect can minimize physical work and focus on the service of its Master, that is good for it; so long as it does not completely ignore the work of the house and destroy it. As this would also be considered a sin for him, as the King wished to have a creature like this. It is like the saying of Rabbi Yose, (Taanit 22b) that a person may not afflict himself on a fast day, which Rav Yehudah explained in the name of Rav as stemming from the verse "and man was a living thing" (Genesis 2:7), [which implies that the soul should be allowed to live]. On the [same basis] the wise king stated (Ecclesiastes 7:15), "Do not be overly righteous; do not be overly wise. Why should you be desolate?" And this is the holiness of the nazirite and his loftiness, as he departs from the physical. [About this] Shimon the Righteous said (Nazir 4b), "In all my days [as a priest], I never ate the guilt-offering of an impure nazirite, apart from one man who came to me from the South, who had beautiful eyes and a fine countenance, and his locks were arranged in curls. I said to him, 'My son, what did you see to destroy this [beautiful] hair?' He said to me, 'I was a shepherd for my father in my town, and I went to draw water from the spring, and I looked at my reflection. And my evil inclination quickly rose against me and sought to drive me from the world. I said to my evil inclination, "Wicked one! For what reason are you proud in a world that is not yours, about one who in the future will be maggots and worms. [I swear by] the Temple service that I will shave you for the [sake of] Heaven.' Immediately, I arose and kissed him on his head, and said to him, 'My son, may there be more nazirites like you in Israel. With regard to you the verse states (Numbers 6:2), "When either a man or a woman shall clearly utter a vow, the vow of a nazirite, to consecrate himself to the Lord."'" Therefore, in order to suppress the [evil] inclination, he is commanded to shave his head at the end of the days of his [term]. And he is not permitted to fix it up and to take a little of them, so that his [evil] impulse does not come back against him as [it did] at first. Rather, he has become obligated to shave it all, for there is no doubt that both very long hair and completely shaven heads destroy the appearance of a person.

(3) And do not wrangle [with] me from what they, may their memory be blessed, said (Nazir 19a), "He must bring an atonement offering for himself, for he pained himself by avoiding wine." For this also works with our explanation. Since I have already said that a person does not have the right to destroy his house and to wreck anything of the building that was built by the First Builder, it is fitting for him to bring atonement for his soul. For perhaps he has overstepped the boundary that obligates him with regard to his body and his soul. As perhaps being a nazirite is overly afflicting to his soul according to his nature and constitution. And all 'the ways of God, may He be blessed, are righteous and the just follow them.' And Ramban, may his memory be blessed, wrote in his commentary (Ramban on Numbers 6:11) according to the simple understanding that the reason of the sin-offering that the nazirite bring for atonement [is] that he requires atonement for returning to become impure with the desires of the world. As once this person had had a 'spirit of God' upon him and began to become a nazirite to God, it would have been fit to stay that way for his whole life. And there are seventy faces to the Torah.

(28) He shall bring himself. The time limit for a vow of nezirus was not mentioned in the Torah, because the main point of nezirus is to “set himself apart for Hashem,” which means to remove himself from physical desires, arrogance, and luxuries. Such a thing has no time limit. Each person needs to appraise himself as to the amount of time he needs to reign in his urges, whether 30 or 100 days, according to his nature. The test of whether he has reached completion, and his urges will not hold sway over him, is when he looks at his own affairs like someone looking at someone else’s actions, and he is not preoccupied with self-love. At such a level, one can be assured that he will only benefit from worldly pleasures in the proper amount and he will not be drawn after luxuries. On the contrary, he will have pleasure in this world and will have positive interactions with other people. Therefore, the Torah uses a language of “he shall bring himself” as if he were bringing another man. One should view his own affairs with the same perspective he views another man’s virtues and weighs him on the scales of justice.