BJ Nászo Názir

§ The mishna taught that if one says: I will be beautiful [na’e], he is a nazirite. The Gemara asks: But perhaps when he said: I will be beautiful, he meant: I will be beautiful before Him in mitzvot? As it is taught in a baraita: “This is my God and I will glorify Him [anvehu]” (Exodus 15:2). Anvehu has the same root as the word na’e; therefore, the verse means: I will be beautiful before Him in mitzvot. How is this done? I will make before Him a beautiful sukka, a beautiful lulav, beautiful ritual fringes. I will write before Him a beautiful Torah scroll, and I will wrap it in beautiful silk cloths [shira’in].

The Gemara answers that Shmuel said: The mishna is referring to a case where one is holding his hair and says: I will be beautiful. This clearly indicates that he is referring to naziriteship.

The Gemara asks: Since naziriteship is a matter of transgression, can we say about a nazirite that he is beautiful?

The Gemara answers: Yes, as even according to Rabbi Elazar HaKappar, who said that a nazirite is a sinner, that applies only with regard to a ritually impure nazirite. This is because it is necessary for him to void the days of his vow that have been observed and to begin his term anew, as the Merciful One states in the Torah: “But the first days will be void, because his consecration was defiled” (Numbers 6:12). It is there that Rabbi Elazar HaKappar called the nazirite a sinner, because perhaps he will come to transgress his naziriteship now that he is a nazirite for a longer period than he originally intended. However, with regard to a ritually pure nazirite, Rabbi Elazar HaKappar does not call him a sinner.

As it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Elazar HaKappar, the esteemed one, says: What is the meaning when the verse states with regard to a nazirite: “And make atonement for him, for he sinned by the soul” (Numbers 6:11)? And with which soul did this person sin by becoming a nazirite? Rather, in afflicting himself by abstaining from wine, he is considered to have sinned with his own soul, and he must bring a sin-offering for the naziriteship itself, for causing his body to suffer. And an a fortiori inference can be learned from this: Just as this person, in afflicting himself by abstaining only from wine, is nevertheless called a sinner, in the case of one who afflicts himself by abstaining from everything, through fasting or other acts of mortification, all the more so is he described as a sinner. According to this opinion, Rabbi Yishmael holds that since the woman afflicted herself by abstaining from wine she must bring a sin-offering, even though, due to her husband’s nullification, she did not actually become a nazirite.

The Gemara raises a difficulty with Rabbi Elazar HaKappar’s dictum: But this verse, labeling the nazirite a sinner, is written with regard to an impure nazirite, and we are saying that even a pure nazirite is a sinner. The Gemara answers: Rabbi Elazar HaKappar holds that a pure nazirite is also a sinner. And this is the reason that the statement that a nazirite is a sinner is written in reference to an impure nazirite rather than a pure one: Since he repeated his sin, as his impurity causes him to start his naziriteship again, he thereby deprives himself for a longer period. He should have taken extra care to prevent this from happening.

Separation is the beginning of Piety. All that we have explained up to now concerned the requirements needed for a man to become a Tzadik (righteous person). From here on we will discuss the requirements in order to become a Chasid (pious person).

We find that Separation is to Piety as Watchfulness is to Zeal. For the former concerns "turning from evil" (Tehilim 34:14), while the latter concerns "doing good" (ibid).

The general principle of Separation is what our sages of blessed memory said: "sanctify yourself [by abstaining] of what is permitted to you" (Yevamot 20a). This is the meaning of the word "Separation" itself. That is to say - to separate and distance from the thing, prohibiting on oneself something which is permitted. The intent in this is to not come to violate the prohibition itself.

The intent is that a person distance and separate from anything which may lead to something which could bring about evil, even though right now it does not cause evil and even though it is not itself evil.

If you ask: On what grounds should we add on additional prohibitions? Our sages of blessed memory already said: "is what the Torah prohibited not enough for you that you seek to forbid on yourself additional matters?!" (Yerushalmi Nedarim 9:1). Surely that which our sages, in their great wisdom, saw necessary to prohibit and make fences they already did so. Thus that which they left as permitted is because they deemed proper for it to be permitted and not forbidden.

Why then should we now adopt new decrees which they did not see fit to enact? Furthermore, there is no end to this matter. Thus, a man would soon be desolate and afflicted, deriving no enjoyment whatsoever from this world, while our sages, of blessed memory, said: "a person will in the future be held accountable before G-d on all that his eyes beheld and he did not want to eat from it" (Yerushalmi Kidushin 4:12). This is even though it was permitted to him and he had the ability to do so. They brought support for this from scripture: "all that my eyes desired I did not deprive them" (Kohelet 2:10).

The answer to this is that Separation is certainly needed and essential. Our sages of blessed memory exhorted us on this saying (Torat Kohanim 19:2): "'you shall be holy' (Vayikra 19:2) - you shall be Perushim (men of Separation)".

They further said: "whoever fasts is termed 'holy', we can make this inference from the case of a Nazir" (Taanit 11a).

They further said (Pesikta D'Rav Kahana 6:2): "'the righteous man eats to sate his soul' - this refers to Chizkiyahu, King of Judah, whose meal consisted of two bunches of vegetables and a litra of meat. The Jews would mock him saying: 'this is a king?'".

They further said regarding the holy Rabeinu HaKadosh, who before his death lifted his ten fingers and said: "it is revealed and known to You that I did not derive pleasure from this world, not even to my little finger."

They further said (Yalkut Shimoni 247:830): "before a man prays that the words of Torah enter his innards, he should first pray that food and drink not enter them".

The explanation is that the matter certainly involves many fundamental distinctions. There is [good] Separation which we are commanded in and there is [bad] Separation which we are warned not to stumble in. This is what king Shlomo said: "do not be overly righteous" (Kohelet 7:16).

We will now explain the good type of Separation. After it has become clear to us that all matters of this world are trials to a man, as we wrote earlier and demonstrated with proofs, and likewise after we have truly realized man's great frailness and his close disposition to all evil, it will perforce be clear that man should do whatever he can to spare himself from these matters in order to protect himself from the evil which is at their feet. For there is no worldly pleasure which does not draw after it some sin in its heel.

This is the good type of Separation, namely, where one takes from the world, in all the uses he makes of it, only that which he is forced to due to the needs of his nature.

But the bad sort of Separation is that of the foolish gentiles who abstain not only from taking of the world the non-essential but also from taking that which is essential. They smite their bodies with sufferings and strange afflictions which G-d does not desire at all. On the contrary, our sages said: "it is forbidden for a man to afflict himself" (Taanit 22b). And regarding charity they said: "whoever needs to take but does not take is as one who sheds blood" (Yerushalmi end of Peah). And likewise they interpreted: "'a living soul' - the soul that I gave you, keep it alive" (Taanit 22b). And "whoever sits in fast is called a sinner" (Taanit 11b), which they qualified as being in the case where a person is unable to withstand it.

And Hillel would apply the verse: "'the pious man does good to his own soul' (Mishlei 11) to eating the morning meal. He would also wash his face and hands in honor of his Maker, inferring from the practice of washing the statues of kings" (Vayikra Rabba 34).

Here then is a true general principle: whatever worldly matter is not essential for a man, it is proper for him to separate from it, and whatever is essential to him for whatever reason, if he separates from it - he is a sinner, since that thing is necessary for him.

Behold, this is a faithful guideline. But the weighing of this rule is a matter of individual judgment and "according to his understanding a man is praised" (Mishlei 12:8). For it is impossible to discuss all the details of Separation for they are so numerous that a man's mind cannot grasp all of them. Rather each matter must be dealt with in its time.

§ The Gemara returns to the primary topic of the tractate, the issue of fasts. Shmuel said: Whoever sits in observance of a fast is called a sinner, as it is inappropriate to take unnecessary suffering upon oneself. The Gemara comments: Shmuel holds in accordance with the opinion of the following tanna, as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Elazar HaKappar the Great says: What is the meaning when the verse states, with regard to a nazirite: “And he will atone for him for that he sinned by the soul [nefesh]” (Numbers 6:11). But with what soul did this nazirite sin? Rather, the nazirite sinned by the distress he caused himself when he abstained from wine, in accordance with the terms of his vow.

And are these matters not inferred a fortiori? And if this nazirite, who distressed himself by abstaining only from wine, is nevertheless called a sinner and requires atonement, then with regard to one who distresses himself by abstaining from each and every matter of food and drink when he fasts, all the more so should he be considered a sinner.

Conversely, Rabbi Elazar says: One who accepts a fast upon himself is called sacred, as it is stated with regard to the nazirite: “He shall be sacred, he shall let the locks of the hair of his head grow long” (Numbers 6:5). Here too, one can apply an a fortiori inference: And if this nazirite, who distressed himself by abstaining from only one matter, wine, is nevertheless called sacred, then with regard to one who distresses himself by abstaining from every matter, all the more so should he be considered sacred.

The Gemara asks: And according to the opinion of Shmuel, the nazirite is indeed called sacred, as stated by Rabbi Elazar. The Gemara answers: That verse is referring to the sanctity of the growth of the locks, as the nazirite’s hair does possess an element of sanctity, but it does not refer to the nazirite himself. The Gemara reverses the question: And according to the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, the nazirite is called a sinner. The Gemara answers: That verse refers specifically to a nazirite who rendered himself ritually impure by coming into contact with a dead body, an act that is prohibited for him. This particular nazirite must bring an offering to atone “for that he sinned by the soul.”

The Gemara asks: And did Rabbi Elazar actually say this, that fasting is a virtuous act? But didn’t Rabbi Elazar say: A person should always consider himself