Textures of Avodat Hashem: Jewish Asceticism - Brought to you by: Your BMC (Talia Schiff, Chana Weinberg, Rivka Lichtenstein, Tova Sklar & Rachel Fried)
(ב) דַּבֵּר֙ אֶל־בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל וְאָמַרְתָּ֖ אֲלֵקֶ֑ם אִ֣ישׁ אֽוֹ־אִשָּׁ֗ה כִּ֤י יַפְלִא֙ לִנְדֹּר֙ נֶ֣דֶר נָזִ֔יר לְהַזִּ֖יר לַֽה' (ג) מִיַּ֤יִן וְשֵׁכָר֙ יַזִּ֔יר חֹ֥מֶץ יַ֛יִן וְחֹ֥מֶץ שֵׁכָ֖ר לֹ֣א יִשְׁתֶּ֑ה וְכָל־מִשְׁרַ֤ת עֲנָבִים֙ לֹ֣א יִשְׁתֶּ֔ה וַעֲנָבִ֛ים לַחִ֥ים וִיבֵשִׁ֖ים לֹ֥א יֹאכֵֽל׃ (ד) כֹּ֖ל יְמֵ֣י נִזְר֑וֹ מִכֹּל֩ אֲשֶׁ֨ר יֵעָשֶׂ֜ה מִגֶּ֣פֶן הַיַּ֗יִן מֵחַרְצַנִּ֛ים וְעַד־זָ֖ג לֹ֥א יֹאכֵֽל׃ (ה) כָּל־יְמֵי֙ נֶ֣דֶר נִזְר֔וֹ תַּ֖עַר לֹא־יַעֲבֹ֣ר עַל־רֹאשׁ֑וֹ עַד־מְלֹ֨את הַיָּמִ֜ם אֲשֶׁר־יַזִּ֤יר לַה' קָדֹ֣שׁ יִהְיֶ֔ה גַּדֵּ֥ל פֶּ֖רַע שְׂעַ֥ר רֹאשֽׁוֹ׃
(2) Speak to the Israelites and say to them: If anyone, man or woman, explicitly utters a nazirite’s vow, to set himself apart for the LORD, (3) he shall abstain from wine and any other intoxicant; he shall not drink vinegar of wine or of any other intoxicant, neither shall he drink anything in which grapes have been steeped, nor eat grapes fresh or dried. (4) Throughout his term as nazirite, he may not eat anything that is obtained from the grapevine, even seeds or skin. (5) Throughout the term of his vow as nazirite, no razor shall touch his head; it shall remain consecrated until the completion of his term as nazirite of the LORD, the hair of his head being left to grow untrimmed.
How would you describe the Nazir's relationship with materialism in his Avodat Hashem? Should this be the mainstream approach?
אמר שמואל כל היושב בתענית נקרא חוטא סבר כי האי תנא דתניא ר' אלעזר הקפר ברבי אומר מה תלמוד לומר (במדבר ו, יא) וכפר עליו מאשר חטא על הנפש וכי באיזה נפש חטא זה אלא שציער עצמו מן היין והלא דברים קל וחומר ומה זה שלא ציער עצמו אלא מן היין נקרא חוטא המצער עצמו מכל דבר ודבר על אחת כמה וכמה ר' אלעזר אומר נקרא קדוש שנאמר (במדבר ו, ה) קדוש יהיה גדל פרע שער ראשו ומה זה שלא ציער עצמו אלא מדבר אחד נקרא קדוש המצער עצמו מכל דבר על אחת כמה וכמה ולשמואל הא איקרי קדוש ההוא אגידול פרע קאי ולר' אלעזר הא נקרא חוטא ההוא דסאיב נפשיה
§ The Gemara returns return to the primary topic of the tractate, the issue of fasts. Shmuel said: Whoever sits in observance of a fast is called a sinner, as it is inappropriate to take unnecessary suffering upon oneself. The Gemara comments: Shmuel holds in accordance with the opinion of the following tanna, as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Elazar HaKappar the Great says: What is the meaning when the verse states, with regard to a nazirite: “And he will atone for him for that he sinned by the soul [nefesh]” (Numbers 6:11). But with what soul did this nazirite sin? Rather, the nazirite sinned by the distress he caused himself when he abstained from wine, in accordance with the terms of his vow. And are these matters not inferred a fortiori? And if this nazirite, who distressed himself by abstaining only from wine, is nevertheless called a sinner and requires atonement, then with regard to one who distresses himself by abstaining from each and every matter of food and drink when he fasts, all the more so should he be considered a sinner. Conversely, Rabbi Elazar says: One who accepts a fast upon himself is called sacred, as it is stated with regard to the nazirite: “He shall be sacred, he shall let the locks of the hair of his head grow long” (Numbers 6:5). Here too, one can apply an a fortiori inference: And if this nazirite, who distressed himself by abstaining from only one matter, wine, is nevertheless called sacred, then with regard to one who distresses himself by abstaining from every matter, all the more so should he be considered sacred. The Gemara asks: And according to the opinion of Shmuel, the nazirite is indeed called sacred, as stated by Rabbi Elazar. The Gemara answers: That verse is referring to the sanctity of the growth of the locks, as the nazirite’s hair does possess an element of sanctity, but it does not refer to the nazirite himself. The Gemara reverses the question: And according to the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, the nazirite is called a sinner. The Gemara answers: That verse refers specifically to a nazirite who rendered himself ritually impure by coming into contact with a dead body, an act that is prohibited for him. This particular nazirite must bring an offering to atone “for that he sinned by the soul.”
What are the dissenting reasons why a Nazir brings a Korban Chatat at the end of his Nezirut period? What are the underlying philosophies explaining the relationship between worldly pleasures and Avodat Hashem for those reasons?
I. Rabbi Elazar HaKappar--the Ascetic Approach to Avodat Hashem (serving G-d through abstinance)
Josephus on the Essenes (https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-artifacts/dead-sea-scrolls/josephus-on-the-essenes/)
(8.5)
128 Toward the Deity, at least: pious observances uniquely [expressed]. Before the sun rises, they utter nothing of the mundane things, but only certain ancestral prayers to him,... 129 After these things, they are dismissed by the curators to the various crafts that they have each come to know, and after they have worked strenuously until the fifth hour they are again assembled in one area, where they belt on linen covers and wash their bodies in frigid water. After this purification they gather in a private hall,... 130 After they have seated themselves in silence, the baker serves the loaves in order, whereas the cook serves each person one dish of one food. 131 The priest offers a prayer before the food, and it is forbidden to taste anything before the prayer; when he has had his breakfast he offers another concluding prayer. While starting and also while finishing, then, they honor God as the sponsor of life... 132 ...neither yelling nor disorder pollutes the house at any time, but they yield conversation to one another in order. 133 And to those from outside, the silence of those inside appears as a kind of shiver-inducing mystery. The reason for this is their continuous sobriety and the rationing of food and drink among them—to the point of fullness.
This excerpt describes the Essenes-- a specific Jewish sect during the second Temple Period.
How does their approach reflect the philosophy of Rabbi Elazar HaKappar?
Do you think this a viable form of religious service?
(א) הפרישות היא תחלת החסידות. ותראה שכל מה שביארנו עד עתה הוא מה שמצטרך אל האדם לשיהיה צדיק ומכאן ולהלאה הוא לשיהיה חסיד.
(ב) ונמצא הפרישות עם החסידות הוא כמו הזהירות עם הזריזות, שזה בסור מרע וזה בעשה טוב.
(ג) והנה כלל הפרישות הוא מה שאמרו ז"ל (יבמות כ): קדש עצמך במותר לך, וזאת היא הוראתה של המלה עצמה, פרישות, רוצה לומר, להיות פורש ומרחיק עצמו מן הדבר, והיינו, שאוסר על עצמו דבר היתר, והכונה בזה לשלא יפגע באיסור עצמו.
(ד) והענין, שכל דבר שיוכל להולד ממנו גרמת רע אף על פי שעכשיו אינו גורם לו וכל שכן שאיננו רע ממש, ירחק ויפרוש ממנו.
Rabbi Moshe Chaim Luzzatto (1707-1746)
(1) Separation is the beginning of Piety. All that we have explained up to now concerned the requirements needed for a man to become a Tzadik (righteous person). From here on we will discuss the requirements in order to become a Chasid (pious person).
(2) We find that Separation is to Piety as Watchfulness is to Zeal. For the former concerns "turning from evil" (Tehilim 34:14), while the latter concerns "doing good" (ibid).
(3) The general principle of Separation is what our sages of blessed memory said: "sanctify yourself [by abstaining] of what is permitted to you" (Yevamot 20a). This is the meaning of the word "Separation" itself. That is to say - to separate and distance from the thing, prohibiting on oneself something which is permitted. The intent in this is to not come to violate the prohibition itself.
(4) The intent is that a person distance and separate from anything which may lead to something which could bring about evil, even though right now it does not cause evil and even though it is not itself evil.
What's the difference between סור מרע (veer from the bad) and עשה טוב (do good)?
Is it possible to live life the way that the Ramcha"l advises? Are there objective components of our daily lives that would be considered "anything which may lead to something which could bring about evil"?
Should his words be taken literally?
(א) ה'מצוות' אשר כלל אותם הכלל השלושה עשר הם אשר ספרנום ב"הלכות מאכלות אסורות" וב"הלכות שחיטה" וב"הלכות נדרים ונזירות"...
(ב) ואומר כי כל מה שאסרתו התורה עלינו מן המאכלים - מזונם מגונה. ואין בכל מה שנאסר עלינו מה שיסופק שאין הזק בו רק החזיר והחלב; ואין הענין כן כי החזיר יותר לח ממה שצריך ורב הפסולת והמותרות ורוב מה שמאסתו התורה לרוב לכלוכו ומזונו בדברים הנמאסים. וכבר ידעת הקפדת התורה על ראית הלכלוכים ואפילו בשדות במחנה - כל שכן בתוך המדינה. ואילו היתה מותרת אכילת החזיר היו השווקים עם הבתים יותר מלוכלכים מ'בית הכסא' - כמו שתראה ארצות הצרפתים היום. כבר ידעת אמרם "פי חזיר כצואה עוברת דמי":
(ג) וכן חלב הקרב משביע ומפסיד העיכול ומוליך דם קר מדובק - ו
(יג) ועם מה שצותהו התורה מאיסור המאכלים האסורים צותהו גם כן ב'נדרי איסר'. והוא - כי כשיאמר אדם "זה הלחם אסור עלי או זה הבשר אסור עלי" נאסר עליו לאכלו. כל זה - להרגיל לקנות מדת ההסתפקות ולחסום תאות המאכל והמשתה - אמרו "נדרים סיג לפרישות".
(יד) וטעם ה'נזירות' מבואר מאד והוא הפרישות מן היין אשר הפסיד הראשונים והאחרונים 'רבים ועצומים כל הרוגיו' "וגם אלה ביין שגו וגו'. ובא מדין ה'נזירות' מה שתראה מאיסור "כל אשר יצא מגפן היין" - להרחקה יתרה עד שיספיק לאדם ממנו הדבר הצריך כי הנשמר ממנו נקרא 'קדוש' והושם במדרגת 'כהן גדול' ב'קדושה' - עד ש'לא יטמא' אפילו 'לאביו ולאימו' כמוהו זאת הגדולה - מפני שפרש מן היין:
Rabbi Moses ben Maimon, (1135-1204)
(1) The precepts of the thirteenth class are those which we have enumerated in the "Laws concerning forbidden food" (Hilkot maakalot asurot), "Laws concerning killing animals for food" (Hilkot sheḥitah), and "Laws concerning vows and Nazaritism" (Hilkot nedarim u-nezirot). ..
(2) I maintain that the food which is forbidden by the Law is unwholesome. There is nothing among the forbidden kinds of food whose injurious character is doubted, except pork (Lev. 11:7), and fat (ibid. 7:23). But also in these cases the doubt is not justified. For pork contains more moisture than necessary [for human food], and too much of superfluous matter. The principal reason why the Law forbids swine's flesh is to be found in the circumstance that its habits and its food are very dirty and loathsome. It has already been pointed out how emphatically the Law enjoins the removal of the sight of loathsome objects, even in the field and in the camp; (13) In addition to the things prohibited by the Law, we are also commanded to observe the prohibitions enjoined by our own vows (Num. xxx.). If we say, This bread or this meat is forbidden for us, we are not allowed to partake of that food. The object of that precept is to train us in temperance, that we should be able to control our appetites for eating and drinking. Our Sages say accordingly, "Vows are a fence for abstinence." ...
(14) The object of Nazaritism (Num. vi.) is obvious. It keeps away from wine that has ruined people in ardent and modern times. "Many strong men have been slain by it" (Prov. 27:26). "But they also have erred through wine. . . . the priest and the prophet" (Isa. 28:7). In the law about the Nazarite we notice even the prohibition, "he shall eat nothing that is made of the vine tree" (Num. 6:4), as an additional precaution, implying the lesson that man must take of wine only as much as is absolutely necessary. For he who abstains from drinking it is called "holy"; his sanctity is made equal to that of the high-priest, in not being allowed to defile himself even to his father, to his mother, and the like. This honour is given him because he abstains from wine.
What is the goal of these prohibitions, and how does adhering to them impact our attempts to maintain a "holy" lifestyle?
Would you say that the Ramcha"l agreed with the Rambam?
While it's "honorable" to be a Nazir, do you think the Rambam suggests that it's a goal towards which everyone should strive?
"קדושים תהיו" - הוו פרושים מן העריות ומן העבירה שכל מקום שאתה מוצא גדר ערוה אתה מוצא קדושה לשון רש"י אבל בתורת כהנים (פרשה א ב) ראיתי סתם פרושים תהיו וכן שנו שם (שמיני פרק יב ג) והתקדשתם והייתם קדושים כי קדוש אני כשם שאני קדוש כך אתם תהיו קדושים כשם שאני פרוש כך אתם תהיו פרושים ולפי דעתי אין הפרישות הזו לפרוש מן העריות כדברי הרב אבל הפרישות היא המוזכרת בכל מקום בתלמוד שבעליה נקראים פרושים והענין כי התורה הזהירה בעריות ובמאכלים האסורים והתירה הביאה איש באשתו ואכילת הבשר והיין א"כ ימצא בעל התאוה מקום להיות שטוף בזמת אשתו או נשיו הרבות ולהיות בסובאי יין בזוללי בשר למו וידבר כרצונו בכל הנבלות שלא הוזכר איסור זה בתורה והנה יהיה נבל ברשות התורה לפיכך בא הכתוב אחרי שפרט האיסורים שאסר אותם לגמרי וצוה בדבר כללי שנהיה פרושים מן המותרות ימעט במשגל כענין שאמרו (ברכות כב) שלא יהיו תלמידי חכמים מצויין אצל נשותיהן כתרנגולין ולא ישמש אלא כפי הצריך בקיום המצוה ממנו ויקדש עצמו מן היין במיעוטו כמו שקרא הכתוב (במדבר ו ה) הנזיר קדוש ויזכור הרעות הנזכרות ממנו בתורה (בראשית ט כא) בנח ובלוט וכן יפריש עצמו מן הטומאה אע"פ שלא הוזהרנו ממנה בתורה כמו שהזכירו (חגיגה יח) בגדי עם הארץ מדרס לפרושים וכמו שנקרא הנזיר קדוש (במדבר ו ח) בשמרו מטומאת המת גם כן וגם ישמור פיו ולשונו מהתגאל ברבוי האכילה הגסה ומן הדבור הנמאס כענין שהזכיר הכתוב (ישעיהו ט טז) וכל פה דובר נבלה ויקדש עצמו בזה עד שיגיע לפרישות כמה שאמרו על רבי חייא שלא שח שיחה בטלה מימיו
Rabbi Moshe ben Nachman (1195-1270)
You shall be holy: "One should be separate from sexual transgressions and from sin, for any place that one finds a fence [before] sexual transgressions, one [also] finds holiness (kedusha)" - this is the language of Rashi. But in Sifra, Kedoshim, Section 1, Chapter 2, I saw only, "You shall be holy." And [so,] they learned there (Sifra, Shemini, Chapter 12:3), "'And you shall sanctify yourselves and be holy, since holy am I' (Leviticus 11:44) - Just like I am holy, you should be holy; just like I am separate, you should be separate." But according to my opinion, this separation is not to separate from sexual transgressions, like the words of the rabbi (Rashi). But [rather], the separation is the one mentioned in every place in the Talmud where its [practitioners] are called those that have separated themselves (perushim). And the matter is [that] the Torah prohibited sexual transgressions and forbidden foods, and permitted sexual relations between husband and wife and the eating of meat and [the drinking of] wine. If so, a desirous person will find a place to be lecherous with his wife or his many wives, or to be among the guzzlers of wine and the gluttons of meat. He will speak as he pleases about all the vulgarities, the prohibition of which is not mentioned in the Torah. And behold, he would be a scoundrel with the permission of the Torah. Therefore, Scripture came, after it specified the prohibitions that it completely forbade, and commanded a more general [rule] - that we should be separated from [indulgence of] those things that are permissible: He should minimize sexual relations, like the matter that they stated (Berakhot 22a), "That Torah scholars should not be found with their wives [constantly] like chickens." And he should only have relations according to the need for his execution of the commandment. And he should sanctify himself from wine by minimizing it - just as Scripture calls the Nazarite, holy (Numbers 6:5); and mentions the evil that comes from it in the Torah with Noach (Genesis 9:21) and with Lot (Genesis 19:33). And so [too], he should separate himself from impurity - even though we are not prohibited from it in the Torah - as they mentioned (Chagigah 18b), "The clothing of ignorant people are [considered] midras (a type of impurity) for perushim." And just as the Nazarite is also called holy for his guarding [himself] from the impurity of the dead. And he should also guard his mouth and his tongue from becoming defiled from the multitude of coarse food and from disgusting speech, as mentioned by Scripture (Isaiah 9:16), "and every mouth speaks a vulgarity." And he should sanctify himself with this, until he comes to separation (perishut) - as they said about Rabbi Chiya, that he never spoke idle conversation in his life.
Does the Ramban adopt the "ascetic" approach?
How does the Ramban's understanding of the commandment "Kedoshim TIhyu"-- that Bnei Yisrael should be holy, differ from that of the Ramchal's?
According to the Ramban, what makes a Nazir even holier than the average Jew who acts on his commandment to be holy?
II. R' Elazar, Enhancing Avodat Hashem with Physicality
R’ Hirsch, Exodus 16:25
How would R' Hirsch respond to the Ramcha"l? In what light would he say the Ramcha"l perceives G-d and religion?
Do you agree with his approach? Which logically makes more sense? Is there a key component to religion that R' hirsch is forgetting about when he speaks of indulging in physical pleasure?
מדרש תנחומא פרשת פקודי סימן ט
בזכות אותן המראות שהיו מראות לבעליהן ומרגילות אותן לידי תאוה מתוך הפרך, העמידו כל הצבאות,... כיון שאמר לו הקדוש ברוך הוא למשה לעשות את המשכן, עמדו כל ישראל ונתנדבו, מי שהביא כסף ומי שהביא זהב או נחשת ואבני שוהם ואבני מלואים, הביאו בזריזות הכל. אמרו הנשים, מה יש לנו ליתן בנדבת המשכן. עמדו והביאו את המראות והלכו להן אצל משה. כשראה משה אותן המראות, זעף בהן. אמר להם לישראל, טולו מקלות ושברו שוקיהן של אלו. המראות למה הן צריכין. אמר לו הקדוש ברוך הוא למשה, משה, על אלו אתה מבזה. המראות האלו הן העמידו כל הצבאות הללו במצרים. טול מהן ועשה מהן כיור נחשת וכנו לכהנים, שממנו יהיו מתקדשין הכהנים, שנאמר, ויעש את הכיור נחשת ואת כנו נחשת במראות הצובאות אשר צבאו (שמ' לח ח), באותן המראות שהעמידו את כל הצבאות האלה
In the merit of the mirrors that they would look at the reflection of their husbands and they would lure their husbands [to sleep with them when enduring] the backbreaking labor, all the women stood...when Hashem said to Moshe to "Make the Mishkan," all of Isreal volunteered. Those who brought silver, and gold, and copper, and special stones..they brought all the materials with alacrity. The women said, "What do we have to give for the donations of the Mishkan"? They came and brought the mirrors and they went with them to Moshe. When Moshe saw the mirrors, he was disgusted by them. He said to Israel, " טלו מקלות ושברו שוקיהן של אלו''. Why do they need these mirrors? Hashem said to moshe, "Moshe, on these you're disgracing. These mirrors brought by the women--take from them and make from it a copper kiyor and prepare it for the kohanim, which they'll use to sanctify themselves, as it says, "He made the laver (kiyor) of copper and its stand of copper, from the mirrors of the women
with those mirrors that were given over by all of the women.
What is this source supporting?
How did Hashem reframe Moshe's initial concern?
How does that serve as a possible model when it comes to our interaction with physicality as a people that constantly engages in spiritual pursuits?
רמב"ם הלכות דעות פרק ג'
א- שמא יאמר אדם הואיל והקנאה והתאוה והכבוד וכיוצא בהם דרך רעה הן ומוציאין את האדם מן העולם אפרוש מהן ביותר ואתרחק לצד האחרון עד שלא יאכל בשר ולא ישתה יין ולא ישא אשה ולא ישב בדירה נאה ולא ילבש מלבוש נאה אלא השק והצמר הקשה וכיוצא בהן כגון כהני העובדי כוכבים גם זה דרך רעה היא ואסור לילך בה המהלך בדרך זו נקרא חוטא שהרי הוא אומר בנזיר וכפר עליו מאשר חטא על הנפש אמרו חכמים ומה אם נזיר שלא פירש אלא מן היין צריך כפרה המונע עצמו מכל דבר ודבר על אחת כמה וכמה לפיכך צוו חכמים שלא ימנע אדם עצמו אלא מדברים שמנעתו התורה בלבד ולא יהא אוסר עצמו בנדרים ובשבועות על דברים המותרים כך אמרו חכמים לא דייך מה שאסרה תורה אלא שאתה אוסר עליך דברים אחרים ובכלל הזה אלו שמתענין תמיד אינן בדרך טובה ואסרו חכמים שיהא אדם מסגף עצמו בתענית ועל כל הדברים האלו וכיוצא בהן צוה שלמה ואמר אל תהי צדיק הרבה ואל תתחכם יותר למה תשומם:
Rambam Hilchot De'ot Chapter 3:1
Rabbi Moses ben Maimon, (1135-1204)
1- A person might say, "Since envy, desire, [the pursuit] of honor, and the like, are a wrong path and drive a person from the world, I shall separate from them to a very great degree and move away from them to the opposite extreme." For example, he will not eat meat, nor drink wine, nor live in a pleasant home, nor wear fine clothing, but, rather, [wear] sackcloth and coarse wool and the like - just as the pagan priests do.
This, too, is a bad path and it is forbidden to walk upon it. Whoever follows this path is called a sinner [as implied by Numbers 6:11's] statement concerning a nazarite: "and he [the priest] shall make an atonement for him, for his having sinned regarding [his] soul." Our sages declared: If the nazarite who abstained only from wine requires atonement, how much more so does one who abstains from everything.
Therefore, our Sages directed man to abstain only from those things which the Torah denies him and not to forbid himself permitted things by vows and oaths [of abstention]. Thus, our Sages stated: Are not those things which the Torah has prohibited sufficient for you that you must forbid additional things to yourself?
This general statement also refers to those who fast constantly. They are not following a good path, [for] our Sages have forbidden a man to mortify himself by fasting. Of all the above, and their like, Solomon directed and said: "Do not be overly righteous and do not be overly clever; why make yourself desolate?" (Ecclesiastes 7:16).
It seems as though the Rambam is contradicting himself...hmmm..
Can you think of a way to reconcile the two?
Is it possible that striving for too much holiness, or unrealistic holiness, can cause someone to be a "Sinner" despite the fact that he may be honored by society for his attempts?
הנצי"ב במדבר ו:יא "מאשר חטא על הנפש"
Netziv on Bamidbar, 6:11 "for the guilt that he incurred"
הרי כדאי הוא להזיר עצמו מן התענוג הגשמי כדי להשיג תענוג רוחני של דביקות בה', אבל אחר שאירע לו באונס זו הסיבה אות היא שאינו ראוי לכך וא"כ בחינם ציער עצמו מן היין וביקש דבר שגבוה מערכו וכיוצא בזה ביארנו בפר' קורח הפסוק: "אֵת מַחְתּוֹת הַחַטָּאִים הָאֵלֶּה בְּנַפְשֹׁתָם".
Naftali Zvi Yehuda Berlin (1816-1893)
ִִIt's worthwhile for him to estrange himself from materialistic pleasure in order to experience the spiritual pleasure achieved through attachment to G-d, but after it occurs to him in a situation that the reason [for not having been commanded to abstain from all of the Nazir's restrictions] is not worthwhile for him, and after that it was for nor reason that he caused distress to himself by [abstaining from] wine and strove for something beyond his capabilites...[he brings a korban chatat]
How might the Netziv be reconciling the seemingly contradictory approaches of the Rambam regarding Nezirut (Moreh Nevuchim vs Hilchot Dayot)?
If high levels of holiness are truly impossible to maintain, is there a value in striving for a greater level of holiness?
What's a realistic, long term approach that we can take to create a basic level of holiness throughout our lives?
(There is no wrong answer!! :) )