\
If there is no
relative to whom to return the dishonest gain, it must be returned to Hashem
and given to the Kohen. This is in
addition to the atonement offering through which he atones for the sin. (BeMidbar 5:8)
The meaning of our pasuk is not readily apparent.
Our Sages discuss the passage.
They explain that the section in which the passage appears deals with a
person who has been accused of owing money to another individual. The accused has taken an oath that he does
not owe the money. Based on this oath,
the court released the accused of any liability. Subsequently, the accused admits that he does owe the money. He is required to restore the dishonest
gain, add an additional 20%, and offer a sacrifice[1].
Our passage discusses a special application of this
law. The law is predicated on the
assumption that the wronged party or his heir is available to receive
restitution. If the wronged party has
died without heirs, how does the accused make restitution? To whom does the accused give the dishonest
gain and the 20% fine?
Before we consider our passage’s solution to this
dilemma, we must consider another issue.
How is it possible for a person to die without any heir? Certainly, through tracing the victim’s
ancestry, we can find some distant heir!
Our Sages respond that the passage deals with a victim who is a convert
and dies without children.[2] Those non-Jews who were related to the convert prior to
conversion are no longer regarded as heirs.
Conversion severs the familial tie between the convert and the
non-Jewish community. Therefore, the
childless convert truly has no heirs!
Now, let us return to our passage’s response. Who receives the money? Our pasuk
answers that both the principle amount of the wrongful gain and the 20% fine
are given to the kohen.
Why does the kohen
receive the money? Gershonides offers a
very important answer. He explains that
the Torah apparently wishes to associate the convert with the kohen.
In effect, the Torah makes the kohen
the heir of the convert. The kohanim are the most honored group
within the nation. Creating an
association between the convert and the kohen
elevates the status of the convert.
Why does the Torah wish to elevate the status of the
convert? Gershonides proposes that the
Torah is concerned with the welfare of the convert. The convert does not have extensive family ties within Bnai
Yisrael. This might mark the convert as
an attractive victim for the unscrupulous.
In order to protect the convert from such scheming, the Torah assigns to
the convert the most respected relatives in the nation. In short, the message communicated by this
law is that one who steals from this lonely convert will have to answer to the
honorary relatives – the kohanim![3]
The “Bitter” Mixture Given to the
Sotah
And the kohen shall
stand the woman before Hashem. And he
shall uncover the woman's head. And he
shall place on her hands the reminder offering, the jealousy offering. And in the hand of the kohen shall be the
bitter, curse-bearing water. (BeMidbar
5:18)
This pasuk
discusses the test of the sotah. This
test culminates in the woman drinking a special mixture. This test is based on a miracle. If the woman is guilty of the suspected
crime, then she dies. If she is
innocent the mixture does not harm her.
The Torah describes the drink given to the sotah as "bitter". There are various explanations for this
characterization. The simplest
interpretation is offered by the Talmud in Tractate Sotah. The Talmud
explains that a bitter ingredient is added to the water. This water actually tastes bitter.[4] The Midrash Sifri offers an alternative interpretation. The water is referred to as bitter because
of its effect. If the woman is guilty
of adultery, then the mixture will cause the woman to die. This is a "bitter" outcome.[5] Nachmanides offers another interpretation. He explains that the term "bitter"
refers to an aspect of the miracle.
When the woman drinks the water, it initially tastes sweet. However, if she is guilty, the water’s
initial sweetness is followed by a bitter taste.[6] The most obvious interpretation of the term "bitter" is
offered by the Talmud. Why do Sifri and
Nachmanides insist upon alternative explanations?
Let us begin by considering more carefully the
position of the Talmud. According to
the Talmud, an ingredient is added to the water that provides a bitter
taste. Why is this ingredient
needed? Why should the water have a
bitter taste? The ordeal to which the sotah
is subjected is not a neutral test.
This is because there is no question that the sotah acted
promiscuously. The test to which she is
subjected – the drinking of the special mixture – is designed to determine
whether this promiscuous behavior extended to adultery. This presumption of guilt – in regards to
promiscuity – extends to specific details of the test. Essentially, the test is actually formulated
as a punishment for adultery. The
mixture given to the woman is a potential poison. The sotah vindicates
herself through surviving the ordeal.
In other words, the sotah subjects herself to an ordeal that is
designed as a punishment for adultery.
The test has the potential to kill her.
She establishes her innocence surviving the ordeal; thus proving that
she is not guilty of adultery. This
explains the addition of a bitter ingredient to the mixture. This ingredient communicates the message
that the drink is not a neutral test.
It is a bitter punishment for the adulterous woman.
Sifri and Nachmanides disagree with this simple
interpretation of the term "bitter".
It seems that both are guided by a shared consideration. The ordeal is designed to stress the
miraculous nature of the adjudication.
The addition of an extraneous ingredient to the mixture can only detract
from this design. If the ingredient is
bitter, this is especially true. One
might erroneously attribute the lethal effect of the mixture to its
ingredients. Therefore, it is important
to create the mixture from innocuous ingredients.
We can now understand the dispute between
Nachmanides and Sifri. Sifri maintains
that the term "bitter" refers to the ultimate fate awaiting a guilty sotah.
Nachmanides interprets the term in a more literal sense. The guilty sotah will feel an actual bitter taste. But this sensation only occurs after ingesting the sweet tasting
mixture.
Nachmanides apparently maintains that the guilty
woman must know that her death is a result of the mixture. She cannot be allowed to believe that her
death is coincidental. In order to
communicate this message to the woman, she is immediately affected by the water
itself. She now knows that the mixture
has tested her and found her guilty.
She will know that the water has caused her demise.
The Trial of the Sotah and Our
Responsibility to Uphold the Laws of the Torah
And the man shall be free of sin and the
woman will bear the consequence of her sin.
(BeMidbar 5:31)
The test administered to the sotah requires
that she drink a mixture prepared by the kohen. The woman drinks the mixture. If she is guilty, both she and the adulterer
die. If she is innocent, she is
rewarded with offspring.
This entire trial is based upon a miracle. Nachmanides observes that this is the only
element of the Torah’s judicial system in which justice is dependent upon a
miracle.[7] The Talmud explains that this miracle was a blessing from
Hashem. However, Hashem only performed
this miracle during the period in which the prohibitions against adultery and
sexual promiscuity were scrupulously observed.
Once the nation became lax regarding these laws, Hashem no longer
performed this miracle.[8]
At first glance, this statement from the Talmud
seems difficult to understand. It would
seem that when the people are devoted to the law, the test of the sotah is less necessary. If there is general observance, what harm is
there to society in the failure to detect an occasional deviation? In contrast, if the law is generally disregarded,
every opportunity and tool is needed to assure its enforcement.
The Talmud is teaching us an important concept
regarding our responsibilities for enforcement of the law. Hashem will not perform our duties for
us. We are responsible for enforcement
of the Torah’s mitzvot. We cannot expect Hashem to assume this
responsibility, in our place. However,
if we demonstrate devotion to the Torah, through careful observance, then
Hashem will help us fulfill our desire to enforce the law.
With this principle, we can understand the comments
of the Talmud. At the time that the
people were devoted to observance of the mitzvot,
Hashem assisted the people in enforcing the law. Hashem helped resolve the innocence or guilt of the sotah – the suspected adulterer. The sotah was not able to escape justice. When the people were not devoted to observance, this miracle
could not longer be expected. If the
people did not care about adultery, they could not turn to Hashem to assume
responsibility for enforcement of this prohibition.
Placing the Hair of the Nazir on
the Fire under His Shelamim Sacrifice
And the nazir shall
shave his crown of hair from his head.
And he shall take the hair of his crown and place it upon the fire that
is under the Shelamim sacrifice.
(BeMidbar 6:18)
The nazir
is an individual who takes a vow to separate himself from the material
world. The nazir may not drink wine, cut his hair or come into contact with a
dead body. The ultimate purpose of this
abandonment of material affairs is to encourage greater devotion to Hashem and
the Torah.
Upon completion of the period of the vow, the nazir performs a series of activities in
the Temple. These include bringing a
number of sacrifices. As part of the
process of offering his sacrifices, the nazir
shaves his head and throws the hair upon the fire under the Shelamim sacrifice. What is the meaning of this unusual
requirement?
It is possible for a person to undertake the vow of
the nazir for various reasons. A person may wish to demonstrate religious
superiority over others. This is a
misuse of the institution of nazir. The only acceptable motivation is to improve
one’s devotion to Hashem. This concept
is demonstrated through the throwing of the nazir’s
hair under the sacrifice. The hair
represents the nazir’s vow and subsequent abstention
from the material world. The sacrifice
represents service to Hashem. If the nazir has undertaken the vow in order to
“fuel” service to Hashem, then the vow was proper. However, if the vow was merely an expression of religious elitism,
then it did not serve its true purpose.
The Nazir Status of Shimshon
And the messenger of
Hashem appeared unto the woman, and said to her: Behold now, you are barren,
and have not borne; but you will conceive, and bear a son. Now, beware, I pray thee, and drink no wine
or strong drink, and eat not any unclean thing. For it will be that you will conceive, and bear a son. And no razor shall come upon his head. For the child shall be a Nazir unto G-d from
the womb. And he shall begin to save
Yisrael from of the hand of the Pelishtm.
(Shoftim 13:3-5)
These
passages are taken from the haftarah of Parshat Naso. They introduce the birth of the shofet
– the judge – Shimshon. A messenger
appears to Shimshon’s mother before his birth.
He tells her that she will give birth to a son. This son is destined to save Bnai Yisrael
from the oppression of the Pelishtim.
However, the messenger also tells her that Shimshon must be raised as a nazir and he must observe the nazir restrictions for his entire life.
Why was it necessary for Shimshon to conduct himself as a nazir? According to Ribbe
Eliezer HaKafar, this is not an ideal mode of behavior. It is odd that Shimshon should be required
to conduct himself in a manner that seems at odds with the Torah’s values.
Gershonides offers an interesting response to this question. He explains that Shimshon was destined for
greatness. He was destined to lead Bnai
Yisrael and rescue the nation from oppression.
However, Shimshon’s potential to achieve greatness was coupled with
another characteristic that could threaten his development. Shimshon also possessed very intense
material desires. These desires
eventually proved overwhelming. But
Hashem provided Shimshon – through this message to his mother – with a strategy
for combating his intense material urges.
Hashem commanded Shimshon’s mother that her son should be a nazir.[9] In other
words, for most people, this behavior would not be appropriate. But because of Shimshon’s unusually strong
urges, special measures were necessary.
The
Sin Offering by the Nazir
The priest shall
prepare one as a Chatat and one as Olah to atone for his inadvertent defilement
by the dead. (BeMidbar 6:11)
Parshat Naso describes the laws governing the nazir.
The nazir is a person who
takes a vow to separate oneself from material pleasures. The nazir
may not drink wine or cut his hair. The
nazir is also prohibited from
defilement through contact with a dead body.
A nazir
who does come in contact with a dead body is defiled. This defiled nazir must
bring a series of sacrifices as atonement.
One of these sacrifices is a Chatat
– a sin offering. Rashi explains that
this sin offering is required because the nazir
did not exercise adequate care in keeping the vow.[10]
Rashi offers a second interpretation of the Chatat offering. He quotes the comments of the Talmud in
Tractate Nazir. Rebbe Eliezer HaKafar explains that the sin
of the nazir is not merely
unintentional contact with a dead body.
The nazir vowed to abandon the
pleasure of drinking wine. The sin of
the nazir is the self-affliction and
denial that he has accepted upon himself.
The Talmud further comments that we learn an important lesson from this
law. The nazir is obligated to bring a Chatat
because of a vow not to drink wine. A
person who, as a general practice, abandons the material pleasures is even more
guilty.[11]
This explanation of the Chatat is clearly supported by another law. A nazir
who successfully completed the vow must also bring a Chatat.[12] In this case, the vow has not been violated. Why is a Chatat
required? Rebbe Eliezer HaKafar’s
explanation resolves this issue. Even
the successful nazir requires
atonement. The nazir must atone for the self-affliction and deprivation.
According to Rebbe Eliezer HaKafar, the nazir has acted improperly. Yet, the Torah created the mitzvah of nazir! This interpretation
raises an obvious question. How can the Torah define an inappropriate behavior
as a mitzvah?
Maimonides deals with this question in his introduction
to Perkai Avot. He explains the Torah
is designed to help us achieve moderation in all of our attitudes. But what constitutes moderation? The term “moderation” assumes that the
moderate attitude is balanced between extremes. In other words, every attitude occupies a midpoint along a
continuum of possible attitudes. An
example helps illustrate Maimonides’ position.
A person who has a moderate attitude towards personal wealth is able to
use his wealth in order to secure a meaningful improvement in his
condition. This attitude is balanced
between the extreme attitudes demonstrated by the spendthrift and the miserly
person. The miser cannot part with his
wealth even when circumstances dictate that the expenditure is worthwhile. The spendthrift expends his wealth with
abandon, unable to consider the true value of the items he purchases. According to Maimonides, we should strive
for to conduct ourselves in a manner that is balanced between the two extremes. A person should not be a spendthrift. Neither should one be stingy. Similarly, we are not permitted to act
cowardly. We also may not endanger
ourselves unnecessarily. Instead, our
attitude towards risk should reflect moderation. We should be willing and able to subject ourselves to a reasonable
risk if the circumstances so demand.
The same pattern applies to all behaviors and attitudes. We must seek the middle road.
Inevitably, we all have attitudes that are not
moderate but instead somewhat extreme.
Some of us may be overly shy.
Others may be egotistical. How
does one correct a flaw? Maimonides
explains that the Torah suggests that we temporarily force ourselves to adopt
the behavior and attitude of the opposite extreme. The stingy person practices being a spendthrift. The glutton adopts a very restricted
diet. With time, this practice will
enable the person to break the original attachment. One will be able to adopt the moderate behavior and attitude
required by the Torah.
Maimonides explains that the mitzvah of the nazir should
be understood in this context. The nazir is a person who was overly
attached to the material pleasures. The
nazir makes a vow to adopt the
behavior associated with the opposite extreme.
He embraces self-denial for a period of time. The ultimate goal is to free the personality from his inordinate
attachment to material pleasures. This
will allow him to ultimately achieve an attitude of moderation.
However, the Torah did not want us to mistakenly
view the nazir’s behavior of
self-denial as an ideal. We must
recognize that the nazir’s vow is
intended as a corrective measure for an extreme attitude and behavior. How was this message communicated? This was accomplished through the Chatat of the nazir. The Chatat teaches that the lifestyle of
self-denial adopted by the nazir is
not inherently proper. The measures
adopted by the nazir are necessary in order to help him achieve
moderation. The ultimate goal is
balanced conduct, not the extreme behavior of the nazir.[13]
Maimonides seemingly contradicts this interpretation
of the nazir and the Chatat in his Moreh Nevuchim. There, Maimonides explains that one of the
goals of the Torah is to completely distance oneself from the material
desires. Furthermore, Maimonides asserts
that the nazir is considered a
sanctified individual. How does the nazir earn this status? Maimonides responds that the nazir has given up wine![14]
These comments seem to contradict completely the
position Maimonides outlined in his introduction to Perkai Avot. In the Moreh Nevuchim, Maimonides endorses
extreme behavior of the nazir as an ideal. He also asserts that the nazir’s
abandonment of wine is laudable! How
can these two positions be reconciled?
In these two texts Maimonides is dealing with two
completely separate issues. In his
introduction to Perkai Avot, he is discussing the basis for a healthy
personality. He explains that
psychological health requires, and is manifested, in moderation in behavior and
attitudes.
However, the objective of the Torah is to guide an
individual to truth and spiritual perfection.
As a person grows spiritually and embraces truth, the individual begins
to re-evaluate the meaning of life.
Material pleasures loose their glamour and attraction. This abandonment is not the result of vows
of self-denial. The tzadik – the righteous person – simply loses interest in material
affairs. This tzadik is the individual Maimonides describes in the Moreh
Nevuchim. The tzadik is a truly spiritual person guided solely by his appraisal
of reality and is assessment of what is truly important. In other words, the Torah views moderation
in one’s attitude towards material pleasures as the ideal attitude to most
people However, the Torah also
acknowledges that as a person grows intellectually and spiritually, his
interest with and attachment to material pleasures declines. With this re-orientation, he naturally
abandons material pleasures that were previously far more significant to him.
As explained above, the nazir is not the tzadik
described in the Moreh Nevuchim. This tzadik does not require a vow to
moderate his interaction with the material world. Instead, the nazir is a
person attempting to move away from an extreme attachment to material
pleasure. The nazir is striving to achieve the middle road. The Torah constructed a mitzvah to help this person – the mitzvah of nazir. However, this mitzvah is not merely a set of arbitrary restrictions. The nazir
adopts the behaviors of the tzadik. He experiments with living the life and
adopting the attitudes of a truly spiritual individual. He learns that although he is not nearly
ready to be this exalted person, he can live without the material pleasure to
which he previously regarded as necessities.
In short, the nazir is not the
perfected individual described in the Moreh Nevuchim. However, he does adopt the behaviors associated with the tzadik.
[1] Rabbaynu Shlomo ben Yitzchak (Rashi), Commentary on Sefer BeMidbar 5:6.
[2] Rabbaynu Shlomo ben Yitzchak (Rashi), Commentary on Sefer BeMidbar 5:8.
[3] Rabbaynu Levi ben Gershon (Ralbag / Gershonides), Commentary on
Sefer BeMidbar, 5:5.
[4] Mesechet Sotah 20a.
[5] Sifrei Parshat Naso, Chapter 11.
[6] Rabbaynu Moshe ben Nachman (Ramban / Nachmanides), Commentary on Sefer BeMidbar 5:18.
[7] Rabbaynu Moshe ben Nachman (Ramban / Nachmanides), Commentary on Sefer BMidbar 5:20.
[8] Mesechet Sotah 47a.
[9] Rabbaynu Levi ben Gershon (Ralbag / Gershonides), Commentary on Sefer Shoftim 13:3.
[10] Rabbaynu Shlomo ben Yitzchak (Rashi), Commentary on Sefer BeMidbar 6:11.
[11] Mesechet Nazir 19a.
[12] Sefer BeMidbar 6:7.
[13] Rabbaynu Moshe ben Maimon (Rambam / Maimonides) Commentary on the Mishne, Introduction to Perkai Avot, Chapter 4.
[14] Rabbaynu Moshe ben Maimon (Rambam / Maimonides) Moreh Nevuchim, Volume 3, Chapter 34.