One, what was the nazir's sin? The nazir is forbidden to come into contact with a dead body, but 6:9 records that the case is where the nazir accidently came into contact with the dead body, as the dead person died suddenly. Two, what does the phrase al ha-nefesh in 6:11 mean?
Rashi (on 6:11) first quotes that the nazir's sin was that he/ she was not careful about not coming into contact with a dead body. With this approach, the phrase al ha-nefesh refers to the dead person that the nazir sinned due to the dead person. However, 6:9 states that the person died suddenly. How can the nazir be considered a sinner when he/ she accidentally came in contact with the dead body? Is the nazir supposed to live secluded with no human contact to protect him or herself from not coming into contact with a dead body?
Rashi also quotes a second approach from R. Eliezer Hakappar (Talmud, Ta'anit 11a) who argued that the phrase al ha-nefesh, refers to the nazir and not to the dead body, and the nazir's sin was becoming a nazir since he/ she was then denying him/ herself the enjoyment of wine. This approach is also difficult. If it was a sin not to drink wine, then the Torah could have made the laws of nazir to only involve two items, not to cut one's hair and not to become tamei. Also, the context of 6:11 is referring to the dead body and not to the prohibition of wine which is mentioned in 6:3,4. Furthermore, if it is really a sin to abstain from wine, then the Torah should have stated this idea in reference to all people. (My inclination is that R. Eliezer Hakappar's explanation is because he was bothered by the contradiction between the laws of nazir for whom part of becoming kadosh requires one not to drink wine, and our practice of using wine to me-kadesh Shabbat, festivals and people.)
It must be that the sin in 6:11 refers to the nazir coming into contact with the dead body since that is the context of the verse, but what can be the sin if it was a complete accident? The answer is from the similar word nafshotam in reference to the 250 people who joined with Korah to rebel against Moshe and Aharon, 17:3. What is the connection between these two cases? A possible answer is that in both cases, the nazir and the 250 people, wanted to serve G-d more. The phrase al ha-nefesh by the nazir would then signify this desire of the soul (person) to serve G-d more. Yet, still what was the nazir's sin by the unexpected death?
The answer is that while coming into contact with the dead body was an accident the person did not have to declare himself a nazir. If a regular person comes into contact with a dead body, then there is no prohibition and no sin. The sin of coming into contact with a dead body by the nazir is because the person made himself into a nazir and that was a voluntarily act. Thus, the sin was al ha-nefesh, due to the soul's desire to serve G-d more. A person can choose to become a nazir, which is not a sin, but then the person is responsible for anything that happens even if it is not his/her fault. The person by making him or herself a nazir is putting him/ herself in the "danger zone."
This explanation of 6:11 relates to the larger question of should everybody become a nazir? Or, to phrase the question differently, is becoming a nazir a desirable act? The answer to this question has been debated through the years.
As mentioned above, R. Eliezer Hakappar viewed being a nazir negatively but a second opinion in the Talmud (Ta'anit 11a), R. Eleazar argues that being a nazir is a positive act. This argument continued in the Middle Ages. Rambam (Laws of Opinions 3:1) argues that one should not be ascetic based on the view of R. Eliezer Hakappar. However, Ramban (on 6:14) views the nazir positively. As N. Leibowitz (1980, p. 56) points out, according to the Rambam it is sin to become a nazir while according to the Ramban it is a sin to stop being a nazir.
This argument between the Rambam and the Ramban relates to the different approaches to G-d, whether through mysticism or rationalism. The mystic approach, the Ramban, would be that one can get closer to G-d by subjective experience and thus the more experiences or here more restrictions, the more religious one is. The rational approach, the Rambam, would be that one can only get closer to G-d by following the laws that were commanded, and thus one would not add on what was not required.
N. Leibowitz claims that the positive approach to the nazir follows the simple sense of the text since Bemidbar 6:8 states that the nazir is kadosh. She seems to follow the idea that the word kadosh means holy or exalted, but the word kadosh just means separated, as the nazir has partially separated him/ herself from the world by not being able to become tamei, by not drinking wine, and by not cutting his/ her hair. According to our explanation of 6:11 this separation is not necessarily good since the nazir is more prone to sinning, even for events that are not his/her fault, like accidently coming into contact with a dead body. The end of 6:11 records that after bringing the olah and hatta`t sacrifices, the nazir is kadosh again, but this is not indicative of his/ her desire to be close to G-d, but that since he/ she failed the first time, then he/ she has to separate him/ herself again.
Why are the laws of nazir optional? According to the positive approach these laws should be obligatory. According to the negative approach, why are people given the chance to increase their chance of sinning?
The answer according to the positive approach is that while a being a nazir is a good thing, it would be too difficult to require all people to follow these extra prohibitions, and it can increase the sins of people. However, according to the negative approach, why can one become a nazir?
Rambam (Moreh, 3:48, 1963, pp. 599,600) writes “the reason for nazaritism is to bring about abstinence from drinking wine, which has caused the ruin of the ancients and the moderns…All of the high esteem for the nazir is because he abstains from drink.” The idea would seem to be that while being a nazir is not praiseworthy still it is better to be a nazir than a drunk. Thus, the Rambam, in the end of the Laws of Nazir, 10:14, writes that if one becomes a nazir for bad reasons then being a nazir is bad, but if one does it for sincere religious reasons, then it is a positive action. (See statement by Shimon ha-Tzaddik quoted in Nazir 4b, and Rama quoted by N. Leibowitz, 1982, p. 58.) Yet, according to this reasoning, the law of the nazir should only have involved an abstenence from wine.
A different answer is that the ability of a person to become a nazir is an opportunity for a person, usually the mystically inclined person, who feels a need to do more than required, the chance to do more. This feeling is very common in the religious persona. Thus, within the framework of the Torah, there is the opportunity to do more than one is commanded if one feels so compelled. If this outlet was not allowed, then possibly the person would end up creating new laws, which is prohibited, Devarim 4:2 and 13:1. Thus, while the nazir put him or herself in the "danger zone," the alternative is that the nazir would actually begin to worship G-d in an inappropriate manner, which would be a worse outcome. Yet, according to the adherents of the negative approach, it would have been better if the person never had any feeling to do more than required since according to this approach one should worship G-d as commanded by G-d without "extras."
My understanding of the nazir would be an intermediate position between the positive and negative approaches, as becoming a nazir would not be a sin, and can be viewed positively if a person truly feels this need to worship G-d more than what he/ she is commanded. However, since 6:11 refers to the nazir as having sinned even by an accident, the nazir would not be considered as being more exalted or praiseworthy than a person who did not become a nazir. Furthermore, since becoming a nazir makes a person more exposed to sinning, even unintentionally, it can be a mistake to become a nazir, and then if a person does not have the need to do more than what is commanded, a person should not become a nazir.
Rashi (on 6:11) first quotes that the nazir's sin was that he/ she was not careful about not coming into contact with a dead body. With this approach, the phrase al ha-nefesh refers to the dead person that the nazir sinned due to the dead person. However, 6:9 states that the person died suddenly. How can the nazir be considered a sinner when he/ she accidentally came in contact with the dead body? Is the nazir supposed to live secluded with no human contact to protect him or herself from not coming into contact with a dead body?
Rashi also quotes a second approach from R. Eliezer Hakappar (Talmud, Ta'anit 11a) who argued that the phrase al ha-nefesh, refers to the nazir and not to the dead body, and the nazir's sin was becoming a nazir since he/ she was then denying him/ herself the enjoyment of wine. This approach is also difficult. If it was a sin not to drink wine, then the Torah could have made the laws of nazir to only involve two items, not to cut one's hair and not to become tamei. Also, the context of 6:11 is referring to the dead body and not to the prohibition of wine which is mentioned in 6:3,4. Furthermore, if it is really a sin to abstain from wine, then the Torah should have stated this idea in reference to all people. (My inclination is that R. Eliezer Hakappar's explanation is because he was bothered by the contradiction between the laws of nazir for whom part of becoming kadosh requires one not to drink wine, and our practice of using wine to me-kadesh Shabbat, festivals and people.)
It must be that the sin in 6:11 refers to the nazir coming into contact with the dead body since that is the context of the verse, but what can be the sin if it was a complete accident? The answer is from the similar word nafshotam in reference to the 250 people who joined with Korah to rebel against Moshe and Aharon, 17:3. What is the connection between these two cases? A possible answer is that in both cases, the nazir and the 250 people, wanted to serve G-d more. The phrase al ha-nefesh by the nazir would then signify this desire of the soul (person) to serve G-d more. Yet, still what was the nazir's sin by the unexpected death?
The answer is that while coming into contact with the dead body was an accident the person did not have to declare himself a nazir. If a regular person comes into contact with a dead body, then there is no prohibition and no sin. The sin of coming into contact with a dead body by the nazir is because the person made himself into a nazir and that was a voluntarily act. Thus, the sin was al ha-nefesh, due to the soul's desire to serve G-d more. A person can choose to become a nazir, which is not a sin, but then the person is responsible for anything that happens even if it is not his/her fault. The person by making him or herself a nazir is putting him/ herself in the "danger zone."
This explanation of 6:11 relates to the larger question of should everybody become a nazir? Or, to phrase the question differently, is becoming a nazir a desirable act? The answer to this question has been debated through the years.
As mentioned above, R. Eliezer Hakappar viewed being a nazir negatively but a second opinion in the Talmud (Ta'anit 11a), R. Eleazar argues that being a nazir is a positive act. This argument continued in the Middle Ages. Rambam (Laws of Opinions 3:1) argues that one should not be ascetic based on the view of R. Eliezer Hakappar. However, Ramban (on 6:14) views the nazir positively. As N. Leibowitz (1980, p. 56) points out, according to the Rambam it is sin to become a nazir while according to the Ramban it is a sin to stop being a nazir.
This argument between the Rambam and the Ramban relates to the different approaches to G-d, whether through mysticism or rationalism. The mystic approach, the Ramban, would be that one can get closer to G-d by subjective experience and thus the more experiences or here more restrictions, the more religious one is. The rational approach, the Rambam, would be that one can only get closer to G-d by following the laws that were commanded, and thus one would not add on what was not required.
N. Leibowitz claims that the positive approach to the nazir follows the simple sense of the text since Bemidbar 6:8 states that the nazir is kadosh. She seems to follow the idea that the word kadosh means holy or exalted, but the word kadosh just means separated, as the nazir has partially separated him/ herself from the world by not being able to become tamei, by not drinking wine, and by not cutting his/ her hair. According to our explanation of 6:11 this separation is not necessarily good since the nazir is more prone to sinning, even for events that are not his/her fault, like accidently coming into contact with a dead body. The end of 6:11 records that after bringing the olah and hatta`t sacrifices, the nazir is kadosh again, but this is not indicative of his/ her desire to be close to G-d, but that since he/ she failed the first time, then he/ she has to separate him/ herself again.
Why are the laws of nazir optional? According to the positive approach these laws should be obligatory. According to the negative approach, why are people given the chance to increase their chance of sinning?
The answer according to the positive approach is that while a being a nazir is a good thing, it would be too difficult to require all people to follow these extra prohibitions, and it can increase the sins of people. However, according to the negative approach, why can one become a nazir?
Rambam (Moreh, 3:48, 1963, pp. 599,600) writes “the reason for nazaritism is to bring about abstinence from drinking wine, which has caused the ruin of the ancients and the moderns…All of the high esteem for the nazir is because he abstains from drink.” The idea would seem to be that while being a nazir is not praiseworthy still it is better to be a nazir than a drunk. Thus, the Rambam, in the end of the Laws of Nazir, 10:14, writes that if one becomes a nazir for bad reasons then being a nazir is bad, but if one does it for sincere religious reasons, then it is a positive action. (See statement by Shimon ha-Tzaddik quoted in Nazir 4b, and Rama quoted by N. Leibowitz, 1982, p. 58.) Yet, according to this reasoning, the law of the nazir should only have involved an abstenence from wine.
A different answer is that the ability of a person to become a nazir is an opportunity for a person, usually the mystically inclined person, who feels a need to do more than required, the chance to do more. This feeling is very common in the religious persona. Thus, within the framework of the Torah, there is the opportunity to do more than one is commanded if one feels so compelled. If this outlet was not allowed, then possibly the person would end up creating new laws, which is prohibited, Devarim 4:2 and 13:1. Thus, while the nazir put him or herself in the "danger zone," the alternative is that the nazir would actually begin to worship G-d in an inappropriate manner, which would be a worse outcome. Yet, according to the adherents of the negative approach, it would have been better if the person never had any feeling to do more than required since according to this approach one should worship G-d as commanded by G-d without "extras."
My understanding of the nazir would be an intermediate position between the positive and negative approaches, as becoming a nazir would not be a sin, and can be viewed positively if a person truly feels this need to worship G-d more than what he/ she is commanded. However, since 6:11 refers to the nazir as having sinned even by an accident, the nazir would not be considered as being more exalted or praiseworthy than a person who did not become a nazir. Furthermore, since becoming a nazir makes a person more exposed to sinning, even unintentionally, it can be a mistake to become a nazir, and then if a person does not have the need to do more than what is commanded, a person should not become a nazir.
Bibliography:
Leibowitz, Nehama, 1982, Studies in Bemidbar, translated and adapted by Aryeh Newman, Jerusalem: The World Zionist Organization.