A MAN OR WOMAN WHO SETS

HIMSELF APART BY MAKING A NAZIRITE VOW TO ABSTAIN FOR THE SAKE OF THE LORD. HE SHALL ABSTAIN FROM NEW WINE AND AGED WINE… HE SHALL NOT EAT ANY

PRODUCT OF THE GRAPE VINE, FROM SEEDS TO SKINS.

(Bamidbar 6)

Sinner or Holy Man?

Shemuel said: Anyone who perseveres in fasting

is called a sinner. He agreed with the Tanna

who taught: R. Elazar HaKafar

said in the name of Rabbi: What do we learn from the verse and atone on his behalf for sinning by the soul (Bamidbar

6) – against whose soul did he

sin? Rather, he grieved himself by abstaining from wine. From this we can learn

a kal va'homer

argument: This one who only caused himself grief by abstaining from wine is

called a sinner – all the more so in the case of someone who abstains from many

things.

R. Elazar

says: He is called holy, for it is said, he shall be sacred, and he shall

allow the growth of the hair of his head to grow wild (ibid). This one who only caused himself grief by

abstaining from one thing is called holy – all the more so in the case of one

who abstains from many things.

(Ta'anit 11a)

Should one say that since

envy and passion and honor etc., are a bad path and they remove man from the

world, "I will renounce them completely, distancing myself from them as

much as possible, to the point of not eating meat or drinking wine or marrying,

or dwelling in a pleasant dwelling or wearing nice clothes but sackcloth and

rough wool, etc, as do the idolatrous priests?" – This too is a wrong way,

and it is forbidden to follow it. He who embarks upon this path is called a

sinner, for the Torah, in reference to the nazirite,

says and atone on his behalf for sinning by the

soul. – The Sages said: If a nazirite,

who only denied himself wine, is need of expiation, all the more so one who has cut himself off from everything! Therefore, the

Sages decreed that one should abstain only from those things banned by the

Torah; he should not bind himself with vows and oaths regarding permitted

activities. So said the Sages: Is it not enough for you that which the Torah

forbade – you have to enjoin yourself from other things? Those who constantly

deny themselves are not on a good path, and the Sages forbade one from tormenting

oneself with fasts. Regarding all these and similar things, Solomon decreed: Don't

dumbfounded.

(RaMBaM, Hilhot De'ot, 3:1)

Since it is referring to the case of a corpse that appeared by surprise

and the nazirite is in no way guilty [for becoming

ritually unclean through contact with it], it is clear that the sin is that he

abstained from wine. If this circumstance did not befall him he would not have

been called a sinner, since it was proper for him to abstain from physical

pleasures in order to achieve the spiritual pleasure of clinging to God,

however, since that circumstance [of ritual defilement] was forced upon him it

served as a sign that he was unworthy [of being a nazirite],

and thus he had pointlessly caused himself grief by abstaining from wine and

sought something of which he was unworthy.

(The NeTziV

of Volozhin, Ha'Amek

Davar Bamidbar 6:11)

The Lord turn His face to you and grant peace upon you – Even

at the Cost of Uprooting a Word of the Torah

Pinchas Shifman

At first glance the priestly blessing, with

its surprise-ending, the Lord turn His face to you and grant peace upon you

is set like a detached island amongst a wealth of other topics, some of which

are esoteric and appear to be completely unrelated to it – and even disconnected

from it. Indeed, parashat Nasso

presents us with a variety of topics that seem to lack a common ground. Why

were the Levite census, the princely offerings, the leper and the zav [one who has had a discharge], the one

who acts treacherously, the wife suspected of adultery, the nazirite,

and the priestly blessing all gathered together under one roof? Our Sages tried

to connect the suspected adulteress with the nazirite

by saying that anyone who has seen what becomes of an adulteress will abstain

from wine. However, one may ask whether there is a single thematic thread that

can tie together all of the different topics covered by the parasha.

Here I shall attempt to demonstrate that the principle of peace serves as this

unifying thread.

First we must notice the placement of parashat Nasso in the Torah. Following

the Israelite census that begins in parashat Bamidbar there comes the Levite

census that continues in parashat Nasso.

There is a hidden tension between the notion that all the tribes of Israel

are equal partners in the Tabernacle and the special roles given over to the

priests and to the priests alone. At the end of the parasha

the altar is dedicated and the leader of each tribe brings his offerings. These

are described in tedious detail, repeated exactly for the offerings of each

individual leader, in order to emphasize a notion of great importance: the offerings

of each tribe are the same as those of the others – there is precise equality

between the tribes. Only after this long and repetitive description do we find

in parashat Beha'alotkha an

emphasis upon the idea that the Levites are distinguished from among the

general Israelite community to serve in stead of the first-born as its

representatives in the Tabernacle's service.

However, the various topics that are already

treated by parashat Nasso

already set out the various functions reserved for the priests – that is their

common denominator: the leper and the zav are

brought before the priest (as we have already learned in the book of Vayikra); the one who acts treacherously towards a convert

– But if the man has no kinsman to whom to make restitution – pays his debt

to the priest; the priest gives bitter water to the suspected adulteress; and

the nazirite brings an offering to be sacrificed by

the priest before God upon completing the period of his vow.

All of these matters to be dealt with by the

priests are unusual. After the previous parasha set

out the order of the encampment, each man by his camp and by his standard

all of them by their households and families come the exceptions and

deviants: the leper and zav who are sent away

from the camp due to their physical conditions, the one who acts treacherously

towards his fellow and is fined for his behavior, the woman suspected of

disloyalty to her spouse, and the nazirite who wants

to submit himself to asceticism. There is a reason why all of these matters are

followed by the priestly blessing that ends with the phrase and grant peace

upon you. Peace is the harmony sought after all the exceptions and deviants

listed cause disharmony between man and himself (the nazirite),

man and wife (the suspected adulteress), between the individual and the

community (the leper, the zav, the thief).

There are those who use this idea – the

importance of peace – to explain why the leaders' offerings follow the priestly

blessings. The Kli Yakar

writes:

This passage [regarding the sacrificial

service] is placed in apposition to the priestly blessings, which concludes

with the blessing of peace, because without peace there is nothing, that is why

peace is mentioned at the conclusion of the blessings, and the last mentioned [blessing]

is the most beloved… after mentioning the concluding blessing of peace, it

immediately begins with our passage, which also contains an allusion to peace.

It was for that reason that in reference to the first [leader to offer sacrifice]

it is written: and his offering, using the letter vav in the sense of "and," as if someone

preceded him, so that he would not glory in saying "I sacrificed first."

The name of the leader also goes unmentioned, in order to keep him from saying haughtily,

"I shall be king," for pride is the cause of all disharmony and

affliction… that is why the Torah went on at length mentioning all of the

offerings of each of the twelve leaders in order not to make any one of them

subordinate to another – and that is the source of peace.

According to this interpretation, peace is

integrally connected with the idea of equality, since peace can only be

achieved when one person does not lord over his fellow out of pride nor feel

superior to him. The two sections that precede the priestly blessing of peace –

those of the nazirite and the suspected adulteress – involve

a disruption of peace that can be seen as rooted in haughtiness. Indeed, it is

not surprising that the Sage's attitude towards both these cases is ambivalent.

Some of them relate to them positively, others negatively. Regarding the

suspected adulteress it is said, "No man is jealous for his wife unless a

spirit enters him; the opinions are divided whether it is the spirit of

impurity or of purity" (Sotah

3a), and in any event they said that the Torah allowed for the name of

the Holy One blessed be He to be erased into the water in order to make peace

between man and wife (Sukka

53b). Since this is an exceptional phenomenon, "When the adulterers

became numerous, the [ritual of the] bitter waters was ended" (Mishnah Sotah

9:4), and even earlier the water would not test the wife unless her

husband was sinless (Sotah

47b). Thus, the man could not demand advantaged and superior treatment,

asking that his wife be punished for her treachery if he himself was disloyal,

as the Sages' proof text states, I will not punish your daughters when they

themselves join with harlots, and they sacrifice with the prostitutes (Hosea 4:14).

There is also something haughty in the very

fact of the nazirite's being a nazirite,

with his choice of unconventional behavior. It is unclear whether he is to be

viewed as a sinner or as a holy-man. Some saw him as a superior man who took

special conditions of asceticism upon himself in order to sanctify himself and

remove himself from sin. For example, we find a Talmudic version of the myth of

Narcissus which speaks of a man of "beautiful eyes and handsome looks, his

hair in curls." He took the nazirite vows after

he saw his reflection in a spring, telling his evil inclination, "You take

pride in that which is not yours… so I shall shave you for the sake of

Heaven." Shimon ha'Tzadik kissed him on the

head, saying, "May there be many like you in Israel,

doing the will of the omnipresent. You have caused the verse to be realized: A man or woman who sets himself apart by

Lord'" (Nedarim 9b). On the other hand, perhaps even more emphasis

is placed upon the notion that asceticism is sinful and that the nazirite is required, upon completing the term of his vows,

to offer a sacrifice as one who has engaged in sinning by the soul, as

R. Elazar HaKafar said: "He

grieved himself by abstaining from wine. From this we can learn a kal va'homer

argument: This one who only caused himself grief by abstaining from wine is

called a sinner – all the more so in the case of someone who abstains from many

things" (Nazir 19a).

The sacrifice comes to reestablish peace between man and himself, and to

reinstate him as equal to any other person.

The

notion of peace is connected to the nazirite in yet

another manner. According to one interpretation, the nazirite

is seen as a kind of prophet/judge whose function is to establish peace in the

nation. The MaHaRaShA points out that

four Talmudic tractates (Berakhot, Nazir, Keritut, and Yevamot) conclude with the blessing, "Scholars add

peace to the world, for it is said: And all your sons are learned of he

Lord, and great is the peace of your sons. He tries to explain why this

passage is placed at the conclusion of each of the four tractates. In the case

of Nazir, he ties the nazirite

with the prophets, "who were called to the Lord's service while still in

their mother's womb" such as Samuel (and I shall give him to the Lord

all the days of his life) and Samson (he shall be a nazirite

to the Lord), "who were judges of Israel in order to make peace

between them." That is why the verse and all your sons is cited, "for

even while they were small boys [banim =

"boys" or "sons"] they were learned of the Lord, for they

were prepared towards this from the time they were in their mother's womb, and

they would bring about and great is the peace, etc. by just [application

of] law which they performed in Israel, bringing peace upon Israel." According

to this view, the classic nazirites were the judges

of Israel, and they were charged with judging righteously and establishing peace

amongst [God's] creatures, which are two sides of the same principle. The

necessary link between justice and peace connects up with the MaHaRaShA's explanation of why peace in mentioned in the

conclusion of the tractate Yevamot: May the Lord

turn His face to you and grant you peace. Limitations of space allow only

for an abbreviated version of his statement:

And

it seem that the reason is… that this tractate includes strange things that

seem to uproot words of the Torah [for instance, that laxity should be

practiced in order to keep a woman from becoming an agunah

– unable to remarry – and the willingness to exempt a woman from levirate

marriage in order to keep her from becoming repulsive to her husband] for this

is not an uprooting [of laws] from the Torah, rather these touch upon the

virtue of peace… that a woman not be an agunah,

and it is written [of the Torah] its ways are ways of pleasantness, and all

its paths are peace, that she should not become repulsive to her husband,

and if he ends up divorcing her – that is not the paths of peace… and

it concludes the Lord grant strength to His people, for this is not the

uprooting of something from the Torah, but rather the Holy One blessed be He

gave strength and power to His people – who are the scholars – in this matter

to rule leniently, since the Lord shall bless His people with peace

and all its paths are peace and there is no peace here if she becomes an

agunah. The Lord turn

His face to you – even to uproot a word from the Torah in order that the

Lord grant you peace.

The MaHaRaShA's

bold words express a dialectical notion: the Sages' interpretive efforts

involve in one way the uprooting of a something from the Torah, but viewed in

another way there is no uprooting at all. The Holy One blessed be He authorized His people to uproot words from the Torah

in order to keep a woman from becoming an agunah,

or in order to avoid the disruption of house-hold peace. However, the uprooting

of the specific rules in question is actually the realization of a

meta-principle of the Torah: the principle of peace. In this, God turns His

face towards Israel,

even though it is said of Him lo yisa panim [will not show favor; literally: will

not turn His face]. There is no discriminatory showing of favor in peace.

Prof Pinchas Shifman is a professor of law

Among

the many subjects included in Nasso we find a short

chapter on the subject of Asham gezelot – a guilt offering to make restitution for

theft – in which we read: If the man has no redeemer to whom restitution can

be made. In such a case, the Torah obliges the penitent thief to give over

the guilt restitution (i.e., the fifth added to the principal returned to the

rightful owner) to the priest. In this context, one may ask, how is it possible

that an Israelite not have a redeemer? Even should he have no close family

(redeemers), he still has fellow members of his tribe who are related to him and

can redeem. Even were we to assume that a redeemer, for some reason or other,

is not to be found in his tribe, it is always possible to go back to the

fathers of the nation, to our father Jacob and his descendents from the other

tribes, who are the relatives of this man and his redeemers. From all said

above, we find that the man of whom it is said that he has no redeemer must

be a convert, one who, upon conversion, breaks his ties with his family, and is

now a Jew without a redeemer. Therefore, in the context of this parasha much has been said – both in philosophy and

in Halakhah – on the subject of the ger and conversion. The subject of conversion, of

those who fear the Lord.

(Y. Leibowitz: Sihot al Hagei Yisrael U'Moadav, p. 106)

And he heard

the voice speak to him

What is the

meaning of And he heard the voice speak [midaber] to him? (It should be pointed out that this

conjugation of the verb occurs only once again in Scripture, in Ezekiel's account

of the Chariot). Here is what Rashi says about speak

to him:

Midaber is the same as

mitdaber – He heard the voice uttering

itself – it was out of reverence for the Most High God that Scripture

speaks thus: The Voice was speaking to itself, and Moses of himself

heard it. (Silbermann trans.)

That is to say,

the first to him, the voice midaber to him, refers to the speaker Himself, God. Moses heard God

speaking to Himself, heard it within himself. This was not an acoustic event in

which the sound reached Moses, but rather a process occurring in Moses' own

consciousness, which, in Rashi's bold formulation,

speaks to itself. He achieves acquaintance with that which is taking place

within the Divinity. He captures the meaning and direction that is within God,

and he hears it from within himself.

(From Prof. Yeshayahu Leibowitz z"l, He'arot le'OParshiyot HaShavua)

Readers respond

"As if it had shed blood"

The Sages said that a Sanhedrin that executed one criminal every seventy

years was called katlanit ["deadly"].

Harry Langenheim's cartoon in the Emor

issue of Shabbat Shalom, which related to the verse describing the stoning of

the blasphemer, portrays (in jest?!) a Sanhedrin that kills seventy people in

one year. It is said that one picture is worth a thousand words – this requires

a bit more editorial control oversight of the cartoons that regularly appear in

your publication.

A pile of thousands of stones brings to mind visions of destruction, world-wide

destruction, and holocaust. It could appear as an appropriate illustration of

various "Protocols" that mock the Torah, turn its commandments into

pitiless draconian laws, and portrays the court that enforces its laws as

merciless and blood-thirsty.

Rabbi S.R. Hirsch would certainly be horrified to see the glaring

contradiction between his words and the cartoon that was published in

conjunction with them.

Yoav Barzelai – Alon Shevut

Response to the response

True, the cartoon did not reflect the frequency with which the death

penalty was meted out.

My cartoon offers a visual interpretation of the verse and they

stoned him (Vayikra

24:23). It would also be appropriate for the verse and all Israel

stoned him (Joshua 7:24), and so forth for additional I chose to

publish a cartoon relating to a very rare event; I wanted to show what it would

look like after all Israel

had stoned someone.

The execution of an Israelite man or woman is a catastrophe for the

family.

Spoken or written language allows for interpretation that includes

differentiation and explanation, including the thoughts expressed in your

response.

The cartoon is sharp – either/or. It only takes a glance to understand

it.

A picture of an earthquake does not include an account of the frequency

with which natural disasters afflict a particular place on the surface of the

earth.

Similarly, a pictorial illustration of death does not include an

explanation of who was killed, when, and where.

By the way: it is difficult for me to understand why a sensible debate

over parashat hashavu'a

should include a comparison of Shabbat Shalom with The Protocols.

Harry Langbeheim

If you enjoy Shabbat Shalom, please consider contributing towards

its publication and distribution.

• Hebrew edition distributed in Israel

  $700

• English edition distributed via email $

  100

Issues may be dedicated in honor of an event, person, simcha, etc. Requests must be made 3-4 weeks in advance to

appear in the Hebrew, 10 days in advance to appear in the English email.

In Israel,

checks made out to Oz VeShalom may be sent to Oz VeShalom-P.O.B. 4433, Jerusalem

91043. Unfortunately there is no Israeli tax-exemption for local donations.

US and British tax-exempt contributions to Oz VeShalom may be made through:

New Israel

Fund, POB 91588, Washington, DC

20090-1588, USA

New Israel

Fund of Great Britain,

26 Enford Street, London

W1H 2DD, Great Britain

PLEASE NOTE THAT THE NEW ISRAEL

FUND IS NO LONGER ACCEPTING DONATIONS UNDER $100.

PEF will also channel donations and provide a tax-exemption. Donations

should be sent to P.E.F. Israel Endowment Funds, Inc., 317

Madison Ave., Suite 607, New York,

New York 10017

USA

All contributions should be marked as donor-advised to Oz ve'Shalom, the Shabbat Shalom project.

About us

Oz Veshalom-Netivot Shalom is a movement

dedicated to the advancement of a civil society in Israel.

It is committed to promoting the ideals of tolerance, pluralism, and justice,

concepts that have always been central to Jewish tradition and law.

Oz Veshalom-Netivot Shalom shares a deep

attachment to the land of Israel

and it no less views peace as a central religious value. It believes that Jews

have both the religious and the national obligation to support the pursuit of

peace. It maintains that Jewish law clearly requires us to create a fair and

just society, and that co-existence between Jews and Arabs is not an option but

an imperative.

5,000 copies of a 4 page peace oriented commentary on the weekly Torah

reading are written and published by Oz VeShalom/Netivot

Shalom and they are distributed to over 350 synagogues in Israel

and are sent overseas via email. Our web site is www.netivot-shalom.org.il.