From: "Yeshivat Har Etzion's
Israel Koschitzky Virtual Beit Midrash"
To: yhe-intparsha@vbm-torah.org
Subject: INTPARSHA -35: Parashat Naso
YESHIVAT
HAR ETZION
ISRAEL KOSCHITZKY VIRTUAL BEIT MIDRASH (VBM)
*********************************************************
INTRODUCTION
TO PARASHAT HASHAVUA
Parashat
Naso - the Nazir
By
Rav Michael Hattin
Introduction
Parashat Naso resumes the tally, of the three primary
Levitical families, that was initiated towards the end of
last week's parasha. After the Torah enumerates
the
responsibilities of the family of Gershon and the family of
Merari respectively, it then provides an accounting of their
number. As Ramban explained in a slightly different context
last week, the theme of the Book of BeMidbar is that of
journey and passage, and this week's Levitical
census
closely relates to this idea. After all,
the three
Levitical families of Kehat, Gershon, and Merari
are
responsible for the dismantling, transport, and assembly of
the Mishkan at each station along the way to the Promised
Land. The Torah goes on to detail various laws relating to
maintaining the sanctity of the camp, expiation rites for
the transgression of theft and false oaths,
and the
remarkable ceremony prescribed for the Sotah. This week,
however, we shall focus on the passage that follows all of
the above, namely that of the 'Nazir.'
"God spoke to Moshe saying: 'Speak to Bnei Yisrael and
say to them that a man or a woman who explicitly takes
an oath to be a Nazir unto God, shall refrain from wine
and strong drink, vinegar, beverages of grapes,
and
grapes whether fresh or dried.
During the entire
period of being a Nazir, he shall
consume nothing
processed from grapes of the vine, neither from their
seeds nor from their skins. All the days of the
oath
of being a Nazir, he shall not cut the hair of his head
with a razor; until the days of the oath unto God are
completed, they shall be holy, and the hair of
their
heads shall be let alone to grow long. All the days of
his oath to God, he shall not come in contact with
a
human corpse. He shall not defile himself even on the
occasion of his mother's, father's, brother or sister's
death, for the 'nezer' of his God is upon him. All of
the days of his oath, he shall be holy
unto God'"
(BeMidbar 6:1-8).
The Torah thus spells out the three different practices
that the Nazir is expected to observe: 1) a rejection of any
products of the grape vine, 2) a conscious practice of
letting the hair of the head grown long and unkempt, and 3)
a prohibition concerning any contact with death, even in the
case of one's immediate family. What is the significance of
these three items, and, for that matter, what is the exact
meaning of the word 'Nazir'?
The Approach of Ibn Ezra
Surprisingly, the classical medieval commentaries seem
to adopt a rather uniform view of the concept of the Nazir.
Rabbi Avraham Ibn Ezra (12th century, Spain) makes it clear
that the practices prescribed by the Torah for the Nazir are
intended to fashion a framework of isolation for
that
individual, to help him further his initial decision to
withdraw from all that society foolishly
considers
fashionable. "A man or a woman who explicitly ('YaFLi')
takes an oath to be a Nazir unto God." is understood by Ibn
Ezra to be a reference to a vow that
is not only
definitively expressed, but also remarkable ('PeLE') for its
sobriety, "for the majority of the world are led along by
their desires" (commentary to 6:2). Wine, suggests the Ibn
Ezra, clouds one's judgement and can thus interfere with
one's service of God. By taking on a vow of abstinence, the
Nazir expresses a concrete aspiration to overcome
the
temptations of this world.
In fact, explains the Ibn Ezra, the Nazir is so-called
because he wears a figurative crown ('nezer') upon his head,
for his mane of long hair singles him out as one who has
broken the bonds of passion for the fleeting pleasures of
this world. "Realize that all people are enslaved to the
enticements of this world. The true king, who wears a crown
of kingship upon his head, is the one who has liberated
himself from desires." For Ibn Ezra, letting the hair grown
long is a means of singling out this individual and marking
him in a manner that is exceptional. At first glance, Ibn
Ezra's approach seems incongruous, for often we trumpet the
platitude that the Torah does not advocate mortification but
rather sanctification. But considering the matter more
carefully, we may in fact come to the conclusion that true
sanctification is impossible without the
perspective
afforded by abstinence.
The Ideal of Restraint
Significantly, although the context of
our parasha
would appear to limit the duration of the Nazirite vow and
to consequently downplay the desirability of living one's
entire life according to its strictures, Ibn Ezra elsewhere
makes it clear that a life of separation is not to
be
disparaged. Commenting on the Torah's list of forbidden
sexual relationships presented in VaYikra Chapter 18, Ibn
Ezra explains that the emphatic "I am the Lord" stated there
in verse 6 indicates Divine approval for the ideal
of
restraint. "God loves the one who is separated to serve Him
and to listen to His words, as is suggested by the paradigm
of Mount Sinai, as well as by the 'First.' Is this not
man's essence?" (Commentary to verse 6).
Ibn Ezra's mention of Mount Sinai is a reference to the
preparations enjoined upon the people as the day
of
Revelation drew near: "God said to Moshe: approach
the
people and sanctify them today and tomorrow and let them
wash their clothing (and immerse). They shall be prepared
for the third day, for on the third day God will descend on
Mount Sinai in the sight of all the people" (Shemot 19:10-
11). Conveying God's words to the people, Moshe explains:
"be ready for three days and do not come close to a woman"
(verse 15). Thus, the ideal state of being suggested by the
moment of Revelation, a brief interval during which the
experience of God's closeness and immediacy was unrivalled,
is introduced (made possible?) by a recess from sexual
contact. The cryptic 'First' mentioned in Ibn
Ezra's
comments above, is a reference to the First Human Beings.
In his commentary to Bereishit, he suggests that their
consumption of the 'desirous' but forbidden fruit of the
Tree of Knowledge awakened in humanity a sexual appetite
that would henceforth constitute a constant source of not
only frustration, but also a potential cause of estrangement
from God. Man's 'essence' is to strive for
spiritual
progress, but when his physicality is given the opportunity
for unbridled expression, this most important of objectives
is subverted.
Ramban's Emphatic Endorsement and Seforno's Qualification
Although Ibn Ezra may fail to make
a categorical
argument for the merits of a
permanent state of
Naziritehood, the Ramban's (13th century, Spain) comments
are unequivocal. The sin-offering brought by the Nazir at
the conclusion of his vows was understood by some early
Mishnaic opinions as a clear polemic against the self-denial
of life's permitted pleasures (such as wine). The Ramban
emphatically disagrees: "the reason for the sin-offering
brought by the Nazir at the conclusion of his vows is not
stated in the text. The rational explanation appears to be
that this man is actually committing a transgression by
concluding his vows, for up until now he has been separated
in his holiness and in his service to God. It would have
been more fitting for this man to remain a Nazir forever,
sanctified unto his God.he therefore requires atonement for
deciding to return to the defilement associated with the
desires of this world" (Chapter 6, verse 11).
In this connection, it is worthwhile to consider
the
words of the Seforno (15th century, Italy). Like
his
earlier counterparts, Seforno understands that the ideal of
the Nazir is "to be separated ('nazur') from
habitual
pleasures.in order to be dedicated completely to God, to be
occupied in the Torah, to follow His ways and to cleave to
Him." Nevertheless, Seforno proffers that the Torah is very
selective in its choice of abstentions for the Nazir. He is
to be separated only from wine, but this
in no way
constitutes a license to "abuse himself through fasting, for
such conducwould lessen one's strength and
cause a
proportional reduction in his ability to serve God. The
purpose is not for the Nazir to become an ascetic and to
punish his body through self-flagellation after the manner
of the monastic priests. Rather, let him abstain from wine
only, for this will lessen levity and
subdue his
inclinations, without weakening the body's
strength"
(commentary to verse 3). In a similar vein, the emphasis on
allowing the hair of the head to grow long is not arbitrary,
for by so doing the Nazir "casts behind himself all concerns
of beautification and attention to his hair." Thus, here as
well, "separation from material desires" is accomplished
without recourse to general self-abasement and extensive
neglect of the body.
The essential life-affirming
nature of these
restrictions is of course suggested by the third of the
Nazir's strictures, namely the prohibition of coming in
contact with a corpse. Like his counterpart the Cohen Gadol
(High Priest), who alone shares a similar ban on being in
attendance at the death or burial of even immediate family
members, the Nazir's mission is bound up with life. Being
in God's presence is connecting with the Source of all life;
therefore during the period of his vows, the Nazir renounces
death. However, what the Cohen Gadol acquires
through
lineage and appointment, the Nazir accomplishes through the
exercise of his own free choice. He therefore merits to be
holy unto God, to "be illuminated by the Light of life, and
to be a teacher and guide to the generation" (Seforno's
commentary to verse 6).
The Seforno's contribution is significant, for he
is
suggesting that the Torah's purpose in presenting us with
the challenge of the Nazir is not to denigrate physicality
or to deprecate materiality, as if there is an unbridgeable
chasm between the world of the body and the ideal of the
soul. Quite the contrary, for the ultimate success of the
spirit is predicated upon the healthy functioning of the
body. Rather, the restrictions of the Nazir are gentle
reminders that one's goals in life must transcend the desire
to have a good time and to look beautiful, for these are
paradigms for pursuits that, left unchecked, tend to consume
us.
At the same time, the lesson of the Nazir is not
the
straightforward observation that a life of
unbridled
physicality and uncurbed desire cannot, in the
final
analysis, lead to Godliness. That is obvious, and
the
message of the Nazir is much subtler. Ibn Ezra and the
others are suggesting that we often commit the more elusive
error of indulging our base material and physical drives in
the name of 'hidur mitzva' (beautification and adornment of
mitzva performance), when in fact it is really desire in
disguise. We may be living Torah observant lives but still
be very far from the ideal of living in God's presence. We
are acculturated to social norms that venerate the body and
idolize wealth; often, we justify our over-attention to
material pursuits by misinterpreting the Torah's ideal of
sanctification of the physical as a license for
its
unmitigated embrace. The Nazir points the way to a higher
dialectic, in which the body and its passions are, on the
one hand, not to be rejected, but on the other, must be
tempered in the interests of spiritual
growth and
development.
Shabbat Shalom
YESHIVAT HAR ETZION
ISRAEL KOSCHITZKY VIRTUAL BEIT MIDRASH
ALON SHEVUT, GUSH ETZION 90433
Copyright (c) 1999 Yeshivat Har Etzion
All Rights Reserved
**********************************************************************