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 overdo goodness and don't act the wise man to excess, or you many be 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 commit harlotry, nor your daughters-in-law when they commit adultery; for 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 making a nazirite vow to abstain for the sake of the 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 course, leads to matters concerning the righteous of all nations and races, 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.