I know it is only Tuesday, but here is a Dvar Torah for this week's Parasha, Nasso. I do think that the idea presented might be something to contemplate on Shavuot as well.
Parashat Nasso
The Golden Mean
Parashat Nasso contains the various laws of Sotah (suspected adulteress) and Nazir. Masechet Sotah 2a, quotes a baraita (also found in Berachot 63a as well as quoted by Rashi d”h Yafli) in the name of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi; why does the Nazir section come immediately after the Sotah section. He claims that whoever sees a Sotah in her disgrace will separate from wine (which Rashi says is because wine makes a person lightheaded, the cause of her actions).
At first glance, this explanation seems a bit hard to grasp. Why would one create absolute distance from something as a result of seeing a person punished the crime he/she committed? Sure, when first seeing the person, the reaction might be shock, but ultimately, it might be very surprising for a person to completely separate from the “cause” of the sin. However, the separation from Sotah seems extreme, because the person not only separates from wine but from grape products and cutting his/her hair, and from going to a grave or funeral.
Maharal, commenting on Rashi (and therefore commenting on Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi), provides a deeper explanation for the juxtaposition of the two sections. He claims Sotah is the complete opposite of qedusha, for someone is not qadosh unless he/she separates from arayot (which would be all immorality), as Rashi point out at the beginning of Parashat Qedoshim (19:2) (Maharal, in his commentary on Pirqei Avot, Derech Hayyim, mentions this same idea on Mishnah 5:9). He then explains how we know Nazir is supposed to follow the Sotah section. Nazir is a form of making a vow, so the verse (6:2) should have read Ki yidor neder nazir l’hafli. Instead, the verse is Ki yafli li’n’dor neder nazir. Why is the order of the words Yafli first? Maharal says that Yafli, hafla’a, is the language of separation, as Rashi explains at the beginning of his comment on the word Yafli. Therefore, according to Maharal, the way to fix the lack of qedusha is to do qedusha to the extreme, i.e become a Nazir.
However, I am still left wondering the need to go to this extreme. I understand the need to create a fence around the Torah, but why the need for a brick wall 10 feet high. Furthermore, becoming a Nazir does not seem to be something recommended, for the Nazir, in order to end the nezirut, needs to bring a qorban hatat, implying that extreme qedusha is somehow a sin.
To understand the reason that nazir is in some respects a sin, we need to turn to Rambam. In the first 2 chapters of hilchot deot, as well as interspersed throughout his introduction to Pirqei Avot, Rambam talks about fixing character traits. He says that if a person has a tendency towards a certain extreme, that person should go to the opposite extreme because eventually the character trait will end up centered. There are limits to this. For example, to fight off extreme qedusha, one shouldn’t become extremely immoral. Nevertheless, extreme qedusha, as in nezirut, would be sinful because it would remove the person from society. Hence, the requirement for bringing a qorban hatat even though it is seen as a remedy for immorality.
As we go into the summer, we need to remember that extremes are not ideal. There is a need to relax and rejuvenate after a hard year. However, this is not license to do nothing but relax. There is also a need to keep our minds sharp and a need to continue to grow as people. At the same time, don’t think, well, in order not to fall prey to evil, I will shut myself away until the next year. To grow includes the ability to interact with people at times without compromising on ourselves. We cannot become more stringent when it encroaches on others. Our stringencies need to be internal.
Parashat Nasso
The Golden Mean
Parashat Nasso contains the various laws of Sotah (suspected adulteress) and Nazir. Masechet Sotah 2a, quotes a baraita (also found in Berachot 63a as well as quoted by Rashi d”h Yafli) in the name of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi; why does the Nazir section come immediately after the Sotah section. He claims that whoever sees a Sotah in her disgrace will separate from wine (which Rashi says is because wine makes a person lightheaded, the cause of her actions).
At first glance, this explanation seems a bit hard to grasp. Why would one create absolute distance from something as a result of seeing a person punished the crime he/she committed? Sure, when first seeing the person, the reaction might be shock, but ultimately, it might be very surprising for a person to completely separate from the “cause” of the sin. However, the separation from Sotah seems extreme, because the person not only separates from wine but from grape products and cutting his/her hair, and from going to a grave or funeral.
Maharal, commenting on Rashi (and therefore commenting on Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi), provides a deeper explanation for the juxtaposition of the two sections. He claims Sotah is the complete opposite of qedusha, for someone is not qadosh unless he/she separates from arayot (which would be all immorality), as Rashi point out at the beginning of Parashat Qedoshim (19:2) (Maharal, in his commentary on Pirqei Avot, Derech Hayyim, mentions this same idea on Mishnah 5:9). He then explains how we know Nazir is supposed to follow the Sotah section. Nazir is a form of making a vow, so the verse (6:2) should have read Ki yidor neder nazir l’hafli. Instead, the verse is Ki yafli li’n’dor neder nazir. Why is the order of the words Yafli first? Maharal says that Yafli, hafla’a, is the language of separation, as Rashi explains at the beginning of his comment on the word Yafli. Therefore, according to Maharal, the way to fix the lack of qedusha is to do qedusha to the extreme, i.e become a Nazir.
However, I am still left wondering the need to go to this extreme. I understand the need to create a fence around the Torah, but why the need for a brick wall 10 feet high. Furthermore, becoming a Nazir does not seem to be something recommended, for the Nazir, in order to end the nezirut, needs to bring a qorban hatat, implying that extreme qedusha is somehow a sin.
To understand the reason that nazir is in some respects a sin, we need to turn to Rambam. In the first 2 chapters of hilchot deot, as well as interspersed throughout his introduction to Pirqei Avot, Rambam talks about fixing character traits. He says that if a person has a tendency towards a certain extreme, that person should go to the opposite extreme because eventually the character trait will end up centered. There are limits to this. For example, to fight off extreme qedusha, one shouldn’t become extremely immoral. Nevertheless, extreme qedusha, as in nezirut, would be sinful because it would remove the person from society. Hence, the requirement for bringing a qorban hatat even though it is seen as a remedy for immorality.
As we go into the summer, we need to remember that extremes are not ideal. There is a need to relax and rejuvenate after a hard year. However, this is not license to do nothing but relax. There is also a need to keep our minds sharp and a need to continue to grow as people. At the same time, don’t think, well, in order not to fall prey to evil, I will shut myself away until the next year. To grow includes the ability to interact with people at times without compromising on ourselves. We cannot become more stringent when it encroaches on others. Our stringencies need to be internal.
Labels: parasha thoughts
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home