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.

I will comment later but the new Edah Journal has just been put online (finally).

Congratulations to class of 2004 of Columbia University and Yeshiva University upon your graduation. I just spent the last three days at the graduation ceremonies for these two schools because among the graduates was my wife-to-be, Shira Frankel.

I would like to reflect on some things about the commencement ceremonies.
1. To see a sea of blue gowns on Wednesday was an unbelievable sight. It took over 40 minutes for all the graduates, both undergraduates and graduates, to enter the center of campus to be seated.

2. YU president Richard Joel tells the graduates that they are the lights of the new generation. It was quite an interesting speech, but I hope that it wasn't merely words.

3. The typical beach ball playing at the YU graduation continued this year. However, unlike years past where Rabbi Lamm would get up and tell the students they were being inappropriate, President Joel let it continue and also was seen kicking the beach ball back to the students a couple of times. The times, they are a changin.

4. President Bollinger of Columbia spoke about the evils of breaching the first ammendment. He had some harsh words about the Patriot Act as well. I wonder one thing. Whether or not the Patriot Act is unconstitutional, we are still living in a world three years removed from an event which slipped the minds of many in the intelligence community. The goal is to protect the country from another attack. While I can't vouch for whether the Patriot Act will do that, I am still waiting for an alternative that works. Furthermore, to compare the Patriot Act to the Alien and Sedition Act of the early 1800s is a bit unfair.

I would just like to bring to everyone's attention an interesting little article in today's New York Times, "In Israel, a ban on Indian wigs; In Brooklyn a Rush to Comply." Isn't it ironic that the one thing Jews attempt to permit on the grounds of it will make women more comfortable is also the one thing that might be most problematic because of idolatry.

For the halachic ramifications of this issue, check out the posts on Hirhurim.

After reading the comments to my last post, I feel I should set up a couple of ground rules.

Ground rules for commenting:
1. Identify yourself - anonymity is often a sign of weakness

2. If you do attempt to hide your name, please do not use Kinzbrunner as your name of choice.

3. A person should avoid degrading the blogger's father or any other member of the Kinzbrunner family.

My roommate Avraham posted an interesting assessment of the inner struggle between Modern Orthodoxy and Haredi Orthodoxy. Having spent time thinking about the same issue, namely what the difference is between the two regarding secular studies, I believe that Avraham is, for the most part, correct in his assessment. However, I do think it is both a political and a philosophical issue, namely that power is the motivating factor, but at the same time, the question of whether the secular should pervade the holy. Of course, if one looks throughout the history of Jewish thought and intellectual development, to deny the combination of secular and holy, קודש וחול, would be to remain blind. Now, many argue that the study of the "secular" should be left to those who can "handle" the contradictions and maintain their beliefs. And to a certain extent, the argument makes sense, if you assume, of course, that people are still divided into the elite and the masses. However, if you see humanity as something more varied, then the need to be knowledgable is something that should be open to people. To hide information is to ignore truth. Unfortunately, the sad truth is that the "elite" (both in the Modern communities and in the Haredi communities) often, sometimes unconsciously, restrict the flow of information because of perceived harms, yet perhaps in reality to protect their turf, allowing their word to become gospel. And as a result, strife continues to exist in our community.

I found the following website while searching online. It contains links to a series of articles about Lubavitch and the issue of whether Menachem Mendel Schneerson, the last Lubavitcher Rebbe tz"l, is messiah or not. The articles deal both with the various arguments for or against as well as the politics behind the issue.