Parshas Nasso
This is in the merit of my grandmother, Esther bat Mazal. May she have a complete and speedy recovery.
Question:
"God spoke to Moses, telling him to speak to Aaron and his sons, saying:
This is how you must bless the Israelites. Say to them:
'May God bless you and keep watch over you.
'May God illuminate His countenance for you and grant you grace.
'May God lift His continence toward you and grant you peace'.
Let them place My Name upon the Israelites and I will bless them" (Numbers 6:22-27).
(The words of the blessing are quite vague. This question is not about them.) It is quite clear from "Let them place My Name upon the Israelites and I will bless them" (6:27) that it is G-d who actually blesses the people, not the priests. Furthermore, G-d does not need intermediaries. So why have this whole service?
I will be including in my divrei Torah, short notes which are primarily for myself. They will be contained in double brackets, [[abc]]. I highly suggest that you ignore them.
Abstinence
This week's Torah portion contains the section of the Nazir (Numbers 6:1-21), a person who undertakes the optional Nazirite vow for a certain amount of time, which include certain restrictions such as not drinking wine, not cutting hair, etc.
Obviously, the fact that this system is included in our Torah means that it has some function and importance. However, how are we to view the individuals who undertake this vow and abstain from certain things? Should they be viewed favorably, unfavorably, or both? The answer is very important because it will influence how we view the physical world. Do we embrace the physical world or try to escape it?
Looking at the verses themselves, we find what seems to be a contradiction. On the one hand, it seems to say quite clearly:
"As long as he is a nazirite, he is holy to God" (Numbers 6:8).
However, among the offerings the Nazir must bring after completing the time of his vow, it says he must bring:
"…one unblemished yearling female sheep for a sin offering…" (Numbers 6:14).
The nazir offering a sin offering implies that he somehow sinned. This would seem to mean we should view him negatively.
This two readings are manifest in a dispute in the Talmud:
"Rebbi Eliezer HaKappar Berebi says: What is the implication of the phrase 'and he [the priest] shall provide him [the Nazir] atonement for having sinned regarding the person' (Numbers 6:11)? By which person then did he sin? Rather [we must conclude] that it refers to his denying himself wine. This is an a-fortiori argument. Just as one who only withholds from himself wine is called a sinner, how much more so for one who denies for himself all sorts of things!
Rebbi Elazar stated: He is called holy as it says "he shall be holy, the growth of hair on his head shall grow" (Numbers 6:5). And just as he who denies himself only one thing is called holy, how much more so for one who denies himself everything!" (Taanis 11a).
Before proceeding, it is important to state that neither opinion is as radical as might appear:
1. Rebbi Eliezer who condemns the nazir does not advocate hedonism.
2. Similarly, Rebbi Elazar does not advocate starvation.
[[See Torah Temimah regarding the choice of verses. See Bach on Taanis regarding the pairing of Shmuel to Rebbi Elazar]]
This dispute seems to carry into the middle ages, this time between the Rambam and the Ramban.
The Rambam states:
"A person might say, 'since envy, desire, [pursuit of] honor, and the like, are an evil path and drive a person from the world, [see Pirkei Avos 4:21] 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 course wool and the like – just as the pagan priests do.
This, too, is an evil path and it is forbidden to walk upon it. Whoever follows this path is a called a sinner, that behold, it says regarding the Nazir 'and he [the priest] shall provide him [the Nazir] atonement for having sinned regarding the person' (Numbers 6:11). Our Sages declared, if the nazir who only abstains from wine requires atonement, how much more so does one who abstains from everything.
Therefore, our Sages commanded man to abstain only from those things that 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 most forbid additional things to yourself? [Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 9:1]
This general statement also refers to those who fact 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]" (Hilchos Deos 3:1).
A commentary (by Rabbis Za'ev Abramson and Eliyahu Touger) however notes that the Rambam elsewhere says "Whoever takes a vow in order to stabilize his temperaments and correct his deeds, is zealous and praiseworthy" (Hilchos Nedarim 13:23). We see that the Rambam does not condemn vows of abstention when their purpose is to help one conquer his or her evil inclination and return to the middle path (Hilchos Deos 1:4). This is contrasted with abstention for its own sake, which here the Rambam forbids.
[[Commentary states it is interesting to note Rebbi Eliezer HaKappar, the source for the evil of envy, desire, and honor (Avos 4:21), also condemns the Nazir. Compare and contrast the Rambam's mention of pagans with that of the Ramchal's in his discussion of abstinence. See also Rambam's opinion regarding the Nazir in Morah Nevuchim pages 327 and 372 in the Friedlander translation, which require further thought. Finally, see Nazir 4b.]]
This all leads us directly to the Rama's explanation of the Rambam:
"…As Maimonides stated, spiritual healing corresponds to physical. Man must divert his evil inclinations from the extreme to the middle way. This is the basic idea of the Nazirite, when he abstains, because he observes that he has a weakness for worldly pleasures. He must go to the other extreme, in order to attain the middle way. Therefore, the Torah states, 'he shall be holy' (Numbers 6,5), since the holiness of the Nazirite will only really be in evidence, later on, after he has completed the days of his Naziriteship. Only then will he have attained the middle way, not at the time of taking the vow, when he had sinned and was imperfect. This is the meaning of the statement, 'and make atonement for that he sinned…'. This is because the abstention of the Nazirite is evil in itself, since all extremes are bad. The Nazirite was only commanded to abstain in order to achieve a good purpose, the attainment of the middle way" (Studies in Bamidbar, by Nechama Leibowitz, page 58. It does not give the source for the Rema's statement).
In other words, the Nazir is holy because he is working on himself. However, he is sinning because abstention in truth is extreme and bad.
[[If this interpretation is correct, it means that he is allowed to sin – abstain – for the purpose of improving himself. Very strange. One possible, but unlikely reading is that he is saying that the fact he needed to take the vow is a sin or indicates he is a sinner. This is unlikely given what Nechama writes on page 59.]]
In contrast to the Rambam is the Ramban. He holds that the abstention is positive and interprets the Nazir's sin as follows:
"This man sins against himself when he forsakes his vows of abstinence, when the days of his separation are fulfilled. He had separated himself to be holy unto the Lord and by rights he should always continue to live a life of holiness and separation to God, in accordance with the verse: 'And I raised up your sons for prophets and of your young men for Nazirites' (Amos 2:11). There the Nazirite is equated to the prophet. Similarly the Torah states 'All the days of his separation he shall be holy unto the Lord'. Now that he returns to defile himself with worldly passions, he requires atonement" (Ramban on Numbers 6:6, quoted by Nechama on page 56).
[[See however the piece from Toras HaAdam that Rav Hershberg showed to me where the Ramban criticizes the Rambam for his asceticism]]
In other words, the fact that the holy Nazir is choosing to no longer be holy is a sin.
Both the Rambam and the Ramban are able to interpret the sources to support their own position.
This is a very incomplete picture of a dispute that runs very deep. I have presented the views of both the Rambam and Ramban. While we certainly cannot decide between two authorities of such stature, we do need to live our lives and cannot live according to both. G-d willing, with this information, we will be able to form more mature and informed views on this matter.
[[I think this is also related to their disagreement about Kedoshim Tihiyu. See Rambam Sefer HaHitzvos clal 4 verses Ramban on Leviticus 19:2 where he mentions Nazir. I know the Ramban writes on clal 4, I wonder what he says. Maybe this dispute is also related to their disagreement about the World to Come. Or maybe it is unrelated but interesting to note the contrast of opinions.]]
Have a good Shabbas,
Mordechai
This is in the merit of my grandmother, Esther bat Mazal. May she have a complete and speedy recovery.
Question:
"God spoke to Moses, telling him to speak to Aaron and his sons, saying:
This is how you must bless the Israelites. Say to them:
'May God bless you and keep watch over you.
'May God illuminate His countenance for you and grant you grace.
'May God lift His continence toward you and grant you peace'.
Let them place My Name upon the Israelites and I will bless them" (Numbers 6:22-27).
(The words of the blessing are quite vague. This question is not about them.) It is quite clear from "Let them place My Name upon the Israelites and I will bless them" (6:27) that it is G-d who actually blesses the people, not the priests. Furthermore, G-d does not need intermediaries. So why have this whole service?
I will be including in my divrei Torah, short notes which are primarily for myself. They will be contained in double brackets, [[abc]]. I highly suggest that you ignore them.
Abstinence
This week's Torah portion contains the section of the Nazir (Numbers 6:1-21), a person who undertakes the optional Nazirite vow for a certain amount of time, which include certain restrictions such as not drinking wine, not cutting hair, etc.
Obviously, the fact that this system is included in our Torah means that it has some function and importance. However, how are we to view the individuals who undertake this vow and abstain from certain things? Should they be viewed favorably, unfavorably, or both? The answer is very important because it will influence how we view the physical world. Do we embrace the physical world or try to escape it?
Looking at the verses themselves, we find what seems to be a contradiction. On the one hand, it seems to say quite clearly:
"As long as he is a nazirite, he is holy to God" (Numbers 6:8).
However, among the offerings the Nazir must bring after completing the time of his vow, it says he must bring:
"…one unblemished yearling female sheep for a sin offering…" (Numbers 6:14).
The nazir offering a sin offering implies that he somehow sinned. This would seem to mean we should view him negatively.
This two readings are manifest in a dispute in the Talmud:
"Rebbi Eliezer HaKappar Berebi says: What is the implication of the phrase 'and he [the priest] shall provide him [the Nazir] atonement for having sinned regarding the person' (Numbers 6:11)? By which person then did he sin? Rather [we must conclude] that it refers to his denying himself wine. This is an a-fortiori argument. Just as one who only withholds from himself wine is called a sinner, how much more so for one who denies for himself all sorts of things!
Rebbi Elazar stated: He is called holy as it says "he shall be holy, the growth of hair on his head shall grow" (Numbers 6:5). And just as he who denies himself only one thing is called holy, how much more so for one who denies himself everything!" (Taanis 11a).
Before proceeding, it is important to state that neither opinion is as radical as might appear:
1. Rebbi Eliezer who condemns the nazir does not advocate hedonism.
2. Similarly, Rebbi Elazar does not advocate starvation.
[[See Torah Temimah regarding the choice of verses. See Bach on Taanis regarding the pairing of Shmuel to Rebbi Elazar]]
This dispute seems to carry into the middle ages, this time between the Rambam and the Ramban.
The Rambam states:
"A person might say, 'since envy, desire, [pursuit of] honor, and the like, are an evil path and drive a person from the world, [see Pirkei Avos 4:21] 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 course wool and the like – just as the pagan priests do.
This, too, is an evil path and it is forbidden to walk upon it. Whoever follows this path is a called a sinner, that behold, it says regarding the Nazir 'and he [the priest] shall provide him [the Nazir] atonement for having sinned regarding the person' (Numbers 6:11). Our Sages declared, if the nazir who only abstains from wine requires atonement, how much more so does one who abstains from everything.
Therefore, our Sages commanded man to abstain only from those things that 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 most forbid additional things to yourself? [Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 9:1]
This general statement also refers to those who fact 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]" (Hilchos Deos 3:1).
A commentary (by Rabbis Za'ev Abramson and Eliyahu Touger) however notes that the Rambam elsewhere says "Whoever takes a vow in order to stabilize his temperaments and correct his deeds, is zealous and praiseworthy" (Hilchos Nedarim 13:23). We see that the Rambam does not condemn vows of abstention when their purpose is to help one conquer his or her evil inclination and return to the middle path (Hilchos Deos 1:4). This is contrasted with abstention for its own sake, which here the Rambam forbids.
[[Commentary states it is interesting to note Rebbi Eliezer HaKappar, the source for the evil of envy, desire, and honor (Avos 4:21), also condemns the Nazir. Compare and contrast the Rambam's mention of pagans with that of the Ramchal's in his discussion of abstinence. See also Rambam's opinion regarding the Nazir in Morah Nevuchim pages 327 and 372 in the Friedlander translation, which require further thought. Finally, see Nazir 4b.]]
This all leads us directly to the Rama's explanation of the Rambam:
"…As Maimonides stated, spiritual healing corresponds to physical. Man must divert his evil inclinations from the extreme to the middle way. This is the basic idea of the Nazirite, when he abstains, because he observes that he has a weakness for worldly pleasures. He must go to the other extreme, in order to attain the middle way. Therefore, the Torah states, 'he shall be holy' (Numbers 6,5), since the holiness of the Nazirite will only really be in evidence, later on, after he has completed the days of his Naziriteship. Only then will he have attained the middle way, not at the time of taking the vow, when he had sinned and was imperfect. This is the meaning of the statement, 'and make atonement for that he sinned…'. This is because the abstention of the Nazirite is evil in itself, since all extremes are bad. The Nazirite was only commanded to abstain in order to achieve a good purpose, the attainment of the middle way" (Studies in Bamidbar, by Nechama Leibowitz, page 58. It does not give the source for the Rema's statement).
In other words, the Nazir is holy because he is working on himself. However, he is sinning because abstention in truth is extreme and bad.
[[If this interpretation is correct, it means that he is allowed to sin – abstain – for the purpose of improving himself. Very strange. One possible, but unlikely reading is that he is saying that the fact he needed to take the vow is a sin or indicates he is a sinner. This is unlikely given what Nechama writes on page 59.]]
In contrast to the Rambam is the Ramban. He holds that the abstention is positive and interprets the Nazir's sin as follows:
"This man sins against himself when he forsakes his vows of abstinence, when the days of his separation are fulfilled. He had separated himself to be holy unto the Lord and by rights he should always continue to live a life of holiness and separation to God, in accordance with the verse: 'And I raised up your sons for prophets and of your young men for Nazirites' (Amos 2:11). There the Nazirite is equated to the prophet. Similarly the Torah states 'All the days of his separation he shall be holy unto the Lord'. Now that he returns to defile himself with worldly passions, he requires atonement" (Ramban on Numbers 6:6, quoted by Nechama on page 56).
[[See however the piece from Toras HaAdam that Rav Hershberg showed to me where the Ramban criticizes the Rambam for his asceticism]]
In other words, the fact that the holy Nazir is choosing to no longer be holy is a sin.
Both the Rambam and the Ramban are able to interpret the sources to support their own position.
This is a very incomplete picture of a dispute that runs very deep. I have presented the views of both the Rambam and Ramban. While we certainly cannot decide between two authorities of such stature, we do need to live our lives and cannot live according to both. G-d willing, with this information, we will be able to form more mature and informed views on this matter.
[[I think this is also related to their disagreement about Kedoshim Tihiyu. See Rambam Sefer HaHitzvos clal 4 verses Ramban on Leviticus 19:2 where he mentions Nazir. I know the Ramban writes on clal 4, I wonder what he says. Maybe this dispute is also related to their disagreement about the World to Come. Or maybe it is unrelated but interesting to note the contrast of opinions.]]
Have a good Shabbas,
Mordechai
posted by Mordechai18 at 5:00 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home