The enigma of the Nazir-Parshat Nasso 5777

We read in the description of the Nazir in the following pasuk:

ח  כֹּל, יְמֵי נִזְרוֹ, קָדֹשׁ הוּא, לַיהוָה.

8 All the days of his Naziriteship he is holy unto the LORD.

We are told quite clearly that he is a ‘holy’ man for undertaking his Nazirite oath.

However a few pasukim later we read:

יד  וְהִקְרִיב אֶת-קָרְבָּנוֹ לַיהוָה כֶּבֶשׂ בֶּן-שְׁנָתוֹ תָמִים אֶחָד, לְעֹלָה, וְכַבְשָׂה אַחַת בַּת-שְׁנָתָהּ תְּמִימָה, לְחַטָּאת; וְאַיִל-אֶחָד תָּמִים, לִשְׁלָמִים.

14 and he shall present his offering unto the LORD, one he-lamb of the first year without blemish for a burnt-offering, and one ewe-lamb of the first year without blemish for a sin-offering, and one ram without blemish for peace-offerings,

This pasuk tells us that at the end of his nezirut he has to bring a sin offering. Surely this implies that he was faulty in his vow of nezirut and committed a sin which requires a ‘chatat’. The obvious dilemma exist here: what is he, a sinner or a ‘holy’ man?

There is a wonderful story told about the great Gaon of our generation, R’Shlomo Zalman Auerbach zal(Born in Jerusalem, d.1995). He was giving a halacha chabura(lecture) to a number of rabbis, including a certain Rav from Bne Berak in Israel. In the course of the shiur his analysis led to a very lenient conclusion, which he was absolutely convinced should be the current practice. He asked the Rav from Bne Berak to tell his shul members of this halacha, which would be very beneficial to his community. A week later, the rabbi returned to R’ Shlomo Zalman and he immediately asked him if he had told his community the specific leniency. The answer was no. “Why not” asked R’ Auerbach? “Well this is a ‘kula/leniency’ which the community cannot tolerate”.

This response is a complete corruption of the well-known Rabbinic dictum that if you have a stricture which you know the community will not tolerate, then you are obligated not to inform them of the stricture. In today’s Jewish world the same attitude is being applied to leniencies which is clearly not the intention of the Rabbis in the Talmud and beyond.

Nezirut ,by definition,is a law which lives in the world of strictures, as it is not normative, otherwise we would all have to do it. There is a critique of the Nazir found in the commentaries, which argue that he is denying himself one of the  pleasures of the world(wine), which is not acceptable for normative practice. Furthermore, the Kli Yakar(17th century E. Europe) says the following:

כלי יקר במדבר פרק ו פסוק יא

אמנם העובר בבל תוסיף הרי הוא מוסיף גירוי היצר הרע אולי בהוספה זו לא תוסיף התורה תת כוחה לעמוד כנגדו כי אין כוחה כי אם בדבר שהתורה סיבה לו כי המוחץ הוא ירפא. כך נזיר זה נקרא חוטא

He explains that by taking on the extra stricture of Nezirut and making a vow to fulfil it, he is causing his ‘evil inclination’ to react in even a stronger way than usual to his positive Mitzva commitments. As a consequence, the chances for failure are really high and the Torah considers such a person who has failed the test ‘a sinner’ even though his motives may have been initially noble and pure. The Talmud(TB Nedarim 9b) describes a Nazir who is exceptionally praised by Shimon Hatzadik, for his vow of nezirut was as a result of seeing his reflection in the river and realizing that he had to curb his inclinations, by becoming a Nazir. However for many nezirim the act of being ‘machmir’ is taking a risk which can have negative side effects and as such the title ‘sinner’ is more appropriate to such a person than the tltle of ‘holy’ which is reserved for only a few altruistic nazirites.

Interestingly, the Ohr Hachaim Hakadosh(16th cent.Jerusalem) points out a nuance in the introduction to the parsha of Nazir, which suggests that there are two types of Nazir:

אור החיים במדבר פרק ו פסוק ב

ולזה כפל לומר נזיר להזיר לה' ולא אמר להזיר לה', נתכוון לומר כנגד ב' מיני נזירות, נזיר כנגד כל הנזירות שיזיר עצמו, ומאמר להזיר לה' כנגד נזירות שהיא מתחלתה לה' כמעשה אותו אדם שהזיר כשראה בבואה שלו:

There is the purely altruistic Nazir who is described as holy and there is the man who is making the vow for a whole number of personal reasons. He may seem to be religious here but it is lacking in the dedication to God, and in fact can lead to a negative outcome as explained above.

I believe this parsha is giving us a stark warning, especially in the religious climate of the 21st century in the Orthodox community. Many people are invested in certain strictures not because it is an act of great altruism and spirituality but because it is the ‘thing to do’ as his neighbors are doing it and he would be looked down upon for not conforming. I admire the person who commits to a stricture in a quiet and modest way, as it becomes an action between him and God and is not there to impress his colleagues. But when ‘chumrot’ are adopted for other reasons, these can become quite counterproductive. It is well known that when the list of medicines first came out for Pesach use, some people stopped taking medications for 8 days as their tablet was not found on the approved list (and some were in serious condition after Pesach). This was clearly dangerous and I feel that many chumrot  today(clothing, food,’photoshopping’ pictures etc.) should be explained with a ‘health warning’ in that there can be side effects and one must be careful before adopting such practices. The Nazir can be holy but he can also be a sinner and this is a clear warning for future generations to be careful when adopting strictures.

A colleague of mine once pointed out that there was a slight error made (kaviyachol) by putting the prohibition of stealing in the 10 commandments. Had it been left to a comment in the Mishna Berura (yesh omrim shelo gonvim/some say that we must not steal…) then there would have been dozens of books applying all levels of stricture to this law. We sometimes just miss the wood from the trees.

This,I believe, is one of the main lessons of the Nazir. If we wish to take on strictures, be careful not only in the performance but also in the motivation. Otherwise what is considered a religious act can become a sin. There is no more timely message that this in our current Jewish world. Let us pray that all our’ holy’actions are prompted by truly sincere motivations and the modesty which should go hand in hand with the chumrah. Otherwise it is just not worth it.

Rabbi Ian Shaffer                    Cherry Hill NJ