As the Torah mentions (6:11), a Nazir must bring a sin offering. Why is that? Rashi (6:11) cites the Tanna Rebbi Eliezer HaKappar, who explains that the Nazir has sinned in wrongly withholding wine from himself. Yet the Torah (6:5) attests that such a person is holy for this act of becoming a Nazir - so is he holy or a sinner? The Kli Yakar resolves this contradiction by noting that the Torah only says that the Nazir has sinned in a case where he desecrated his Nezirus by coming into contact with a corpse. Since this has the effect of cancelling his previous days of Nezirus and requiring the Nazir to start his days of Nezirus all over again, the previous days of refraining from wine have been shown to be in vain. This is why he is branded a sinner, for it turns out that he refrained from wine for no reason. But a regular Nazir who manages to see out his term of Nezirus successfully is not sinner.
For more info on this interesting subject as to whether a Nazir is regarded as a saint or a sinner, see Ramban 6:14, Tosafos Bava Kama 91b ‘ela,’ and the Rambam hilchos De’os 3:1, hilchos Nezirus 10:14, and hilchos Nedarim 13:23-24).
Citing the gemarra, Rashi (6:2) famously asks why the Torah juxtaposes the topics of the Sotah (the suspected unfaithful wife) and the Nazir (the person who vows to refrain from wine, amongst other things)? Rashi - again citing the gemarra - answers that ‘anyone who sees the Sotah in her decrepit state will refrain from wine, for wine leads to adultery.’ Seems a good answer, but if one looks a bit deeper then there’s a major question to be asked.
If anything, the least necessary time to take on to refrain from wine is when one sees a Sotah in her decrepit state. For after one has seen what (suspected) adultery can do to someone, one is sure to never commit such an act - for the consequences have made such an impression on your mind’s eye. So how does this comment of Rashi make sense? There are two classic answers given here. The first is that an ‘impression’ does not go very far unless one grounds it in some form of action. Thus, in order to ground and cement this inner commitment to never go near adultery, one takes on to avoid wine. Rav Nissim Kaplan offers the second approach to Rashi here. True, one has seen the Sotah in her decrepit state. But the very fact that one has found out that someone has committed such a sin will mean that you are more likely to fall in this area too (‘if she can sink to such a level, maybe I can too’). Thus, in order to prevent such a failing, one takes the precautionary steps in refraining from wine. Indeed, we witness the same principle regarding Amalek. Amalek paved the way for any other nation to attack us by ‘cooling down the bath’ in being the first nation to attack us after we left Egypt. And even though we defeated them in battle, the very fact that other nations heard that a nation dare attack Klal Yisrael allowed the other nations to conceive of mounting such an attack themselves in the future.
Parashas Nasso – The Sotah :
This week we have the second instalment from the book of Bamidbar which is that of the action-packed Parashas Nasso. Again as discussed last week, Nasso begins with a census which continues on from Parashas Bamidbar with the final two families of the Levites being counted and given their responsibilities for the dismantling and carrying of the Mishkan whilst in the desert. The sedra then gives over the command for the purification of the Camp which involved the expelling from the camp of... “everyone with tzaraas, everyone who has had a zav-emission and everyone contaminated by a human corpse” [5:2]. This was of course necessary in order to make the camp a worthy home for the newly erected Mishkan, and according to the Ramban, also the Shechinah (the Divine Presence) which had begun to rest among them. For those sensitive one's amongst you, don't worry this didn't mean that the people who fell into these categories were literally thrown out or escorted out by a six foot bouncer as the Torah uses the double expression of...
Again in this week's parsha we find that the word for counting (na'so or se'u) also means to raise up or uplift. What does this tell us about the Jewish idea of counting? Well firstly, we know that one is not normally allowed to count Jews directly. The reason for this is that counting normally puts limits on a person (you are only number 2, 4, 7 and nothing else) yet the Jewish People are supernatural and limitless; so counting would run contrary to who we are. So Jewish counting is not to limit the person being counted. On the contrary, it is to uplift the person (hence naso/se'u). How?
Just before the marathon description of the princes’ korbanos at the inauguration of the Mishkan, the pasuk says (7:1) ‘and it was on the day that Moshe finished putting up the Mishkan…’ As Rashi notes, the word for ‘finished’ (kalos) is rare,[1] and is similar to the word kalah (a bride). Thus, says Rashi (quoting a Midrash), the pasuk is hinting to us that ‘on the day of the assemblage of the Mishkan, Bnei Yisrael were like a bride (kalah) who enters her chupah.’ Beautiful. There is an issue which is touched upon by this Rashi which requires a bit of thinking. Bnei Yisrael’s relationship with HaShem is often described as a marriage; HaShem is the groom and Bnei Yisrael are His bride. See Shir HaShirim for an extended example. But when was the wedding; when did this marriage ‘officially start?’ The problem is that there is a contradiction on this very point
The Torah goes to great length to repeat the Kobanos of each Nasi. It would have been much shorter to just write it once and then say that all the Nisi'im brought the same Korbanos. Why the lengthy repetition?
I once heard an interesting explanation. Many times we find that people who want to do an act of "Frumkeit" feel that they must "out do" what everyone else is doing. If someone spends £X for an Esrog then I must spend £X plus 1. The Torah is telling us that each Nasi brought the exact same Karbon as his fellow Nasi. There was no need to outdo each other to be great. Each Nasi surely had his own special
NASSO AND SHAVUOS - THE FREEDOM OF TORAH By Yehonasan Gefen :
The parsha discusses the mitzva of Nezirus, whereby a person takes a vow to abstain from wine, to avoid coming into contact with a dead body, and to let his hair grow#. The author of Toras Avraham, Rav Avraham Grodzinki zt”l#, discusses a number of difficulties with regard to the spiritual standing of the Nazir. He notes that at one point the Torah describes him as ’holy’ for depriving himself of physical pleasure#. However, soon after, in the process of describing the sacrifices that he brings, it tells us that he must bring a sin-offering to atone for a certain aveira that he has committed. What is that aveira? Rashi brings the opinion of Rebbe Elazar Hakappa that his sin was that he caused himself pain by depriving himself of the enjoyment of drinking wine#. Thus there is a blatant contradiction as to whether the Nazir is doing a great mitza or is in fact committing an aveira
