באדיבות ישיבת הכותל
Naso: To Be or Not to Be!
A fundamental question that has been debated since the beginning of Jewish history regards the degree of contact and integration one should have with outside culture. Should we embrace it, drawing out its positive features as we assimilate it into our Torah worldview? Should we try to achieve a deeper understanding of Torah through a study of "non-Torah" sources, or should we avoid the potentially corrosive influence it may have upon us?
This "debate" defies easy resolution (or any resolution at all). It is something with which we all must struggle, on many levels; from the theoretical and practical to the intellectual and emotional. "These and those are the words of the living G-d", provided that "whether one does more or one does less, his heart is directed towards heaven".
Those who believe passionately that Torah must be lived in the "real" world, and that we must not run away from the severe dilemmas posed by modernity, face a very real challenge. We must deal seriously with the issue of maintaining our religious purity in the face of a pervasive culture far removed from Torah. For those who feel that full religious observance can only be maintained by building insular communities and separating ourselves as much as possible from the outside world, one must ask: How can the Torah have a message that is relevant to the world at large? And how can one manage successfully if one cuts oneself off from the world around us?
A microcosm of this debate is seen in the attitude of our Sages towards the nazir. Although the Torah permits the drinking of wine—at times it is even a mitzvah—the nazir vows to "separate himself unto the Lord... he shall separate himself from wine ...neither shall he drink any liquor of grapes nor eat grapes" (6:2-4). The nazir decides that he (or she) will be an ascetic, abstaining from the permissible pleasures of this world in order to "separate...unto the Lord". Clearly, his intentions are noble.
Yet there is a sharp debate amongst the commentaries as to the desirability of becoming a nazir. On the one hand, the Torah declares that "as long as he is a nazir, he is holy to G-d" (Bamidbar 6:8). Just like the kohen gadol, the high priest, whose life was dedicated to teaching Torah and serving in the Temple, the nazir is enjoined from having any contact with death, the defiler of holiness, even for a relative. Though a nazir must bring a sin offering, implying that the act of becoming a nazir is itself sinful, Nachmanides claims that it is the abandonment of his status as a nazir that is the sin. To leave a world dedicated solely to cleaving unto G-d for the mundane and impurity of this world requires a sin offering.
However, many claim the sin offering of the nazir is just as it appears to be: an indication that it is sinful to deprive oneself of the permissible pleasures of G-d 's world. "One who sits in fast is called a sinner". Maimonides, quoting the sages, proclaimed, "Is it not enough, what the Torah has forbidden, that you want to add further restrictions?" One must sanctify the mundane, not avoid it.
Perhaps the desirability of nezirut depends on one's motivation. If our souls thirst for G-d and the material inducements of this world are of no interest to us, then becoming a nazir can bring us to the pinnacle of holiness. However, if we decide that it is only by actively rejecting the pleasures of this world that one can seek G-d, then we are making a big mistake. It is sad when one must resort to vows of abstinence to control one's desires.
For some, holiness is to be achieved by following the path of the nazir and limiting interaction with this world. For others, holiness manifests itself in sanctifying this material world by fully participating in it. Each person must discover into which category he or she falls. This way they will be on the proper path to holiness, to "separating themselves to G-d."
כל הנשמה תהלל יה
"כֹּל הַנְּשָׁמָה תְּהַלֵּל יָהּ הַלְלוּ יָהּ" (תהילים ק"נ, ו)
"כל הנשמה" - אמר רבי יהודה בעבור היות המנגן אומר נעימות על הכינור וישתנו הנעימות כפי אריכות הרוח וקוצר הקול או גבהותו או שפלותו או מהירותו על כן חתם "כל הנשמה תהלל יה". ורבי שלמה הספרדי אמר כי זה רמז לנשמה העליונה שהיא בשמים.
ראה ספר תהלות תם ונשלם, ואברהם בנו מאיר כללם, ולא תמו תהלות אל לעולם, ומי הוא זה אשר החל וכלם.
אבן עזרא - ר' אברהם בן מאיר למשפחת אבן עזרא. נולד בטודלה שבספרד המוסלמית בשנת 1089 בערך, ונפטר באנגליה בשנת 1164 בערך. היה חכם רב-תחומי בעל השפעה רבה, בחייו ולאחר מותו. היה משורר, מדקדק, פרשן תנ"ך, פילוסוף, מתרגם, אסטרונום ואסטרולוג. היה תקיף בביקורתו גם נגד גדולים וקדמונים.
קרובים לה'
"וַיָּרֶם קֶרֶן לְעַמּוֹ תְּהִלָּה לְכָל חֲסִידָיו לִבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל עַם קְרֹבוֹ הַלְלוּ יָהּ" (תהילים קמ"ח, יד)
דברים רבה (ליברמן) פרשת ניצבים
"כי קרוב אליך הדבר" (דברים ל', יד) -
אמר ר' שמואל בר נחמני: למה הדבר דומה? לבת מלכים שלא היה אדם מכירה, והיה למלך אהוב אחד, והיה נכנס אצלו בכל שעה, והיתה בתו של מלך עומדת לפניו. אמר לו המלך: ראה היאך אני מחבב אותך, שאין אדם מכיר את בתי, ועומדת לפניך.
כך אמר הקדוש ברוך הוא לישראל: ראו מה אתם חביבין עלי, שאין בפלטין שלי מכיר את התורה, ולכם נתתיה, שנאמר: "ונעלמה מעיני כל חי ומעוף השמים נסתרה" (איוב כ"ח, כא), אבל אתם "לא נפלאת היא ממך" (דברים ל', יא), אלא "קרוב אליך הדבר מאד" (דברים ל', יד),
אמר להם הקדוש ברוך הוא: בני, אם יהיו דברי תורה קרובים לכם, אף אני אקרא אתכם קרובים, שכן כתיב: "לבני ישראל, עם קרובו הללויה" (תהלים קמ"ח, יד).
עוד על יחסי ה' וישראל במדרש מתוך ה'ילקוט שמעוני'
דברים רבה - מדרש אגדה לספר דברים השייך למדרשי התנחומא. הוא נערך בארץ ישראל, ככל הנראה בין סוף המאה השישית לתחילת התשיעית. השם 'רבה' נוסף לשם המדרש, ככל הנראה בהשפעת מדרשי אגדה לספרים אחרים בתורה שנקראו 'רבה'. המדרש אינו מפרש את הספר על פי סדרו, אלא מתמקד בפסוקים הראשונים בכל סדר, הפסוקים שקראו בשבת בבית כנסת לפי המנהג הארץ ישראלי. (מתוך: ע' רייזל, מבוא למדרשים, מכללת הרצוג תשע"א)
אין שלם מלב שבור
"הָרֹפֵא לִשְׁבוּרֵי לֵב וּמְחַבֵּשׁ לְעַצְּבוֹתָם" (תהילים קמ"ז, ג)
ויקרא רבה (מרגליות) פרשת צו פרשה ז ד"ה [ב] זבחי אלהים
"זבחי אלהים רוח נשברה" (תהילים נ"א, יט) - אמר ר' אבא בר יודן: כל מה שפסל בבהמה הכשיר באדם. מה פסל בבהמה? עורת או שבור (ויקרא כ"ב, כב), הכשיר באדם לב נשבר ונדכה, "[לב נשבר ונדכה] אלהים לא תבזה" (שם).
אמר ר' אלכסנדרי: ההדיוט הזה אם משתמש בכלי שבור גניי [=גנאי] הוא לו, אבל הקדוש ברוך הוא כל כלי תשמישיו שבורין הן, דכתיב: "קרוב ה' לנשברי לב" (תהלים ל"ד, יט), "הרופא לשבורי לב" (תהלים קמ"ז, ג), "ואת דכא ושפל רוח להחיות רוח שפלים ולהחיות לב נדכאים" (ישעיה נ"ז, טו), "לב נשבר ונדכה" (תהילים נ"א, יט).
ויקרא רבה - מדרש אגדה ארץ ישראלי על ספר ויקרא, הכולל דרשות על הפסוקים הראשונים בכל 'סדר מקראי', קטע מתוך הפרשה אותו נהגו לקרוא בבתי הכנסת בארץ ישראל. המדרש נערך במאה החמישית לספירה (מתוך: ע' רייזל, מבוא למדרשים, מכללת הרצוג תשע"א)
רחמיו על הזכרים והנקבות
"טוֹב ה' לַכֹּל וְרַחֲמָיו עַל כָּל מַעֲשָׂיו" (תהילים קמ"ה, ט)
ספרי במדבר פרשת פינחס פיסקא קלג ד"ה (קלג) ותקרבנה
"ותקרבנה בנות צלפחד" (במדבר כ"ז, א) - כיון ששמעו בנות צלפחד שהארץ מתחלקת לשבטים לזכרים ולא לנקבות נתקבצו כולן זו על זו ליטול עצה. אמרו: לא כרחמי בשר ודם רחמי המקום. בשר ודם רחמיו על הזכרים יותר מן הנקבות, אבל מי שאמר והיה העולם אינו כן אלא רחמיו על הזכרים ועל הנקבות, רחמיו על הכל, שנאמר: "נותן לחם לכל בשר וגו'" (תהילים קל"ו, כה) "נותן לבהמה לחמה וגו'" (שם קמ"ז, ט) ואומר: "טוב ה' לכל ורחמיו על כל מעשיו" (שם קמ"ה, ט).
ספרי במדבר - מדרש תנאים לספר במדבר מבית מדרשו של רבי ישמעאל. הוא מכונה, יחד עם שאר מדרשי התנאים, 'מדרש הלכה' משום שיש בו עיסוק נרחב בהלכה (מה שאין כמעט במדרשים מתקופת האמוראים) אך יש בו גם הרבה דרשות אגדה. (מתוך: ע' רייזל, מבוא למדרשים, מכללת הרצוג תשע"א)
הפסוקים שצורפו למזמור
ערוך השולחן אורח חיים הלכות ברכות השחר סימן נא
ואמרו (ברכות דף ד ע"ב): "כל האומר 'תהלה לדוד' (תהילים קמ"ה) ג' פעמים בכל יום, מובטח לו שהוא בן עולם הבא". מפני שהוא על סדר א"ב ו[גם] אית ביה [=יש בו] קרא ד"פותח את ידיך" (שם, טז).
והקדימו לזה שני פסוקי 'אשרי': "אשרי יושבי ביתך" (תהילים פ"ד, ה); "אשרי העם שככה לו" (תהילים קמ"ד, טו)... והטעם מפני שמפסוק "אשרי יושבי ביתך" למדנו שצריך לשהות מעט קודם התפלה [ברכות דף לב ע"ב] והכי [=וכך] פירושו: אשרי יושבי ביתך ואחר כך עוד יהללוך סלה. ואגב הסמיכו גם "אשרי העם וגו'" מפני שהוא שבח גדול לישראל כמובן.
ובסוף "תהלה לדוד" הוסיפו קרא ד"ואנחנו נברך וגו' הללויה" (תהילים קט"ו, יח) כדי לשלשולי הללויה בתר [=אחרי] הללויה [טור], משום דכולהו [=שכל] מזמורים אלו מסיימים בהללויה ופותחים בהללויה ותהלה לדוד אינו מסיים בהללויה לכן הסמיכו לו מקרא זה כדי שגם הוא יסיים בהללויה.
The Nazir Must Bring a Sin Offering - is Naziritehood Ideal?
As mentioned yesterday, the Torah in Parashat Naso devotes a section to the laws of a nazir – a man or woman who vows to abide by the nazirite code, which requires abstaining from wine, refraining from haircutting, and avoiding contact with human corpses.
One might inquire as to the common thread that is shared by these three restrictions. The term “nazir” is generally interpreted to mean “abstention” or “separation,” and a nazir is thus somebody who has chosen to “abstain.” Interestingly, however, his “abstention” relates only to wine, haircutting and tum’at meit (the ritual impurity caused by contact with a human corpse). The Torah imposes no special restrictions upon a nazir with regard to common areas of physical activity such as food, drinks (other than wine), marital relations, fine clothing, and so on. The “abstention” of nezirut differs starkly from the observance of Yom Kippur, for example, when we are called upon to eliminate physical comforts and pleasures. Why, then, does the Torah refer to the nazir as “one who abstains,” if he must only abstain from three very specific – and seemingly unrelated – activities?
We might suggest that the three restrictions imposed upon the nazir represent three areas of life that pose spiritual danger to a person: festivity, tragedy, and social pressure. Excessive festivity can lead a person to reckless, uncalculated behavior, and to focus his attention on enjoyment and indulgence rather than on personal responsibility. On the opposite side of the spectrum, the experience of tragedy and loss of life could cause one to question divine justice, and to despair from pursuing a rich, meaningful life. Finally, the quest for social acceptance and the admiration of one’s peers often blinds a person’s judgment, as he determines his courses of action based on what pleases other people rather than his objective reasoning and deeply held values.
Perhaps, then, nezirut means abstaining from life’s religious challenges by avoiding these three areas. The prohibition against drinking wine requires the nazir to avoid festive celebrations, and he must likewise avoid funerals due to the prohibition of tum’at meit. Finally, he is barred from grooming himself and tending to his appearance, and must appear unkempt and disheveled. By avoiding situations of festivity and tragedy and ignoring socially acceptable standards of appearance, the nazir temporarily protects himself from these three areas of religious challenge.
Among the sacrifices required of a nazir upon completing his term of nezirut is a female sheep brought as a sin offering (6:14), and several different approaches have been taken to explain why the nazir would require atonement. The Meshekh Chokhma suggests that although a nazir acted nobly by undertaking these strict measures which he deemed temporarily necessary, he must atone for the mitzvot that he forfeited as a result. He was unable, for example, to attend funerals, even upon the passing of relatives, and could not recite kiddush or havdala over a cup of wine. We might also add the fact that his disheveled appearance likely erected certain social barriers which prevented his involvement in important communal affairs and meaningful social functions. Therefore, even if his undertaking was justifiable in light of his sensing the need for spiritual fortification, it came at the expense of several important mitzvot, a price for which he must atone through a sin offering.
The ambivalence expressed by Chazal toward the nazir thus reflects the tension that exists between protecting oneself from the complexities of the world and the value in confronting them. The period of nezirut creates a temporary safe haven of sorts, but also denies the nazir a number of valuable opportunities. The fact that the Torah sanctioned the institution of nezirut, but at the same time required a sin offering, likely signifies the ambivalence with which we should approach this tension between isolation and engagement. Ideally, the Torah bids us to confront the world, even with its lurking dangers, in an effort to build and improve it. On some occasions, however, it may become necessary to withdraw in the interest of self-protection. But even when such measures are warranted, one must remain aware of the sacrifices entailed, and the need to “atone” for the valuable opportunities forfeited by his decision to withdraw.
Nazir - Kehuna for Everyone?
Parashat Naso explains that a nazir is bound by three restrictions. He may not drink wine, come in contact with a dead body (including relatives), or cut his hair.
Interestingly, the first two of these prohibitions are familiar to us from what seems to be a much different context: the kohanim, or, particularly, the kohen gadol. Towards the beginning of Parashat Emor, the Torah explicitly prohibits a kohen from coming in contact with ritual impurity (see Vayikra 21:1). However, while kohanim in general are permitted to contract ritual impurity when tending to the needs of their immediate relatives (Vayikra 21:2-3), the kohen gadol is forbidden from contact even with family members (Vayikra 21:11). In this respect, the nazir resembles the high priest; he may not come in contact with even deceased relatives (see Bemidbar 6:6-7).
The second prohibition mentioned also brings to mind the kohanim. Though no general prohibition against alcohol applies to the kohanim, in Parashat Shemini (Vayikra 10:9) the Torah forbids the kohanim from drinking before entering the Mishkan to perform the service.
We may reasonably conclude, therefore, that the institution of nezirut is meant to afford the non-kohen a unique opportunity to experience the sanctity of priesthood in the Mishkan. Even those living far from the sacred chamber and who may not perform the rituals reserved for the kohanim are granted the opportunity of attaining this level of sanctity.
We must, of course, address the third prohibition, which the kohen does not share with the nazir. Besides the fact that kohanim may cut their hair, the Torah specifically forbids the kohen gadol from growing his hair long in response to personal tragedy (see Vayikra 21:10). Does this prohibition of the nazir also involve his status as a "quasi-kohen," or does it point to a different feature of the nazir?
A careful reading of the verses both here in Parashat Naso and in Parashat Emor reveals that indeed the hair growth, too, relates to this parallel between the nazir and the kohen gadol. The Torah offers the following reason for the prohibition against the nazir's coming in contact with the dead, including relatives: "ki nezer Elo-hav al rosho" - "for his Lord's crown is upon his head" (Bemidbar 6:7). Sure enough, a similar expression is used in reference to the law forbidding the kohen gadol from leaving the Mishkan to mourn for a deceased relativ: "He shall not go outside the sanctuary… for the crown of the anointing oil of his God is upon him… " (Vayikra 21:12; see Rashi there who explains this verse as referring to mourning). Both the nazir and the kohen gadol wear crowns: the kohen gadol's crown is the anointing oil poured over his head at his appointment to the post, whereas the nazir's crown is his uncut hair.
How does this distinction relate to the association we have drawn between the nazir and the kohen gadol?
The anointing oil was used not only for the consecration of the kohen gadol, but for the consecration of all the other accessories of the Mishkan, as well (see Shemot 30:22-30). Consecration with the anointing oil designates the given object (we refer here to the kohanim as "objects," too) as exclusively dedicated to God. It bestows upon the object a status of objective sanctity, by which it is consecrated entirely for the service of the Almighty. A nazir clearly cannot be anointed with this oil, for such a status cannot be attained voluntarily, nor can it apply on a temporary basis. Instead, the nazir symbolizes his aspirations for this total sanctity by donning his own crown, the symbolic expression of his withdrawal from mundane pursuits and his intensive spiritual yearnings.
In any event, the institution of nezirut demonstrates that kedusha is not reserved for those serving formally in the capacity of spiritual leadership. One need not work in the Mishkan to experience the sanctity of the Mishkan. By setting limits on one's involvement in the mundane world and focusing on more spiritual pursuits, one can indeed turn himself into a "kohen" of sorts, and bring the sacred aura of the Mishkan into his home and every facet of daily life.
Courtesy of Yeshivat Har Etzion - www.etzion.org.il