Answers to Nasso

Naso 5730
Alef.
      1. The two evaluations of the Nazirite that emerge from these commentaries are:

a. The individual is a sinner for having willingly deprived himself of wine when there was no obligation to do so.

b.  The individual is holy for trying to separate himself from some of the “ways of the world.”

RaMBaN who suggests that the sin is entailed in ceasing to be a Nazirite, would support the second of these two views. 

2. The two interpretations of “Nefesh” that arise from the dispute in Tractate Ta’anit are:

a.   R. Eliezer HaKapar B’Rebbe: The Nazirite sinned against himself, i.e., he is the “Nefesh”, by depriving himself of something that was permitted.

b.   R. Elezar: The Nazirite sinned against himself, i.e., he is the “Nefesh”, due to his failure to maintain the holiness of his “Nefesh” by avoiding ritual impurity.  

3. Abrabanel suggests that if R. Eliezer HaKapar were correct, then not only when the person was exposed to ritual impurity should the text have made a comment how he has sinned against his soul, but also when he concludes his Nazirite state (v. 13 ff.) a similar comment should have been made. Since the comment appears only within the context of becoming ritually impure, that leaves the implication that as long as the Nazirite state is completed without incident, there was no sin against the Nazirite’s soul. (The fact that even in the latter case, one of the sacrifices brought is a sin offering would still have to be explained in some way. )

4.  One could have asked regarding R. Eliezer HaKappar why the case of suddenly being exposed to ritual impurity constitutes the Nazirite sinning against his soul—it was innocent and unanticipated. RaMA suggests that the entire state of being a Nazirite, while possibly proving beneficial in the long run, when the person after having gone to an opposite extreme finally reaches equilibrium, nevertheless during the time that he is in the extreme state, is considered as sinning against his soul. (But then you would have the Abrabanel’s issue of why a similar statement does not appear with respect to his conclusion of his Nazirite period without incident.)

Beit.

If the only times according to RE”M RaShI cites the hermeneutic principle “Semichut HaParshiot” is when something is not in its logical place, with respect to the issue of the juxtaposition of Sota and Nazir, it could be said that just as the discussion immediately preceding it, i.e., an aspect of the Asham sacrifice (5:5-10) would be more appropriate in the section where Asham is discussed—VaYikra 5, so too Sota which includes an offering that is precipitated by the woman’s sinful behavior should also more logically appear in the Chatat (VaYikra 4) or Asham section, as opposed to here at the beginning of BaMidbar. Once Sota is out of place, I can then consider its relationship to Nazir, which also could have been in the the Chatat section in VaYikra, since a sin offering is required whether the Nazirite suddenly become Tameh Meit or he completes his term.

Gimel.

Even if the sin according to RaMBaN is that the person is returning to the ways of the world which by definition are less holy than the life of a Nazirite, nevertheless, a sin offering is brought a)  for an inadvertent sin, and the decision to end the Nazirite state is deliberate, and b) the sin offering is usually brought after a sin has been committed, but here, the sin offering is required before the person resumes his normal life, and a sin per se has not as yet been committed.