Rabbi Frand on Parshas Naso
These divrei Torah were adapted from the hashkafa portion of Rabbi Yissocher
Frand's Commuter Chavrusah Tapes on the weekly portion: Tape # 331, Must
A Kallah Cover Her Hair At The Chasunah?
Good Shabbos!
Taking The Sin Of Sotah Back To Its Original Source
The laws concerning the Nazir [a person who vows not to drink wine] are
written immediately following the laws concerning the Sotah [the unfaithful
wife]. The Rabbis comment that the purpose of the juxtaposition of these two
parshios is to teach us that anyone who sees the disgrace of a Sotah should
(immediately) take a vow to abstain from wine [Sotah 2a].
The Jerusalem Talmud [Nedarim 29a] states that, in general, it is not an
admirable practice to accept prohibitions beyond those that the Torah
mandated. However, the exception to that rule is a person who accepts the
restrictions of a Nazirite upon himself after having seen a woman go through
the Sotah process.
The question may be asked, why is accepting Nazirus the appropriate response
to seeing a Sotah? Apparently there is some kind of connection between wine
and infidelity. What is the nature of this relationship?
The Zohar addresses this connection. The Zohar begins by asking the
following question: Why is a Nazir forbidden, not only to drink wine, but
also to eat grapes? There are a number of similarities between the laws of
the Priesthood and the laws of the Nazirites. A Kohen is prohibited to
participate in the Service of the Bais Hamikdash [Temple] after he drank
wine. However, the Kohen is not in any way restricted after having consumed
grapes. The Nazir on the other hand, is restricted, not only from wine but
from grapes as well. Why the difference?
The Zohar answers that the reason why a Nazir cannot eat grapes is because
grapes were the food that Adam ate when he consumed the fruit of the Tree of
Knowledge. There are various opinions in the Talmud as to the nature of this
"Etz HaDa'as". Some say it was an olive tree; some say it was wheat; one
opinion was that it was a grapevine. The Zohar follows this last opinion.
The Zohar explains that the reason why a person must declare himself a Nazir
and abstain from wine and grapes after seeing what happens to a Sotah is
because he thereby "corrects" the sin of Adam who violated G-d's command and
ate grapes from the Tree of Knowledge.
Rav Shimon Schwab (1908-1995), in his sefer "Mayan Beis Ha'Shoevah" helps us
to explain this Zohar. Rav Schwab says that when Adam ate from the Etz
HaDa'as, he diminished his "Tzelem Elokim" [Image of G-d] to a large extent.
Human beings are created in the "Image of G-d". The essence of being "G-d -
like" is that man controls his passions and not vice versa.
Rav Ruderman, zt"l, (1901-1987) used the following verse to illustrate this
concept. The pasuk says, "And the superiority of man over the animal is
nothing (ayin)..." [Koheles 3:19]. Rav Ruderman always used to interpret
this pasuk (which classically is interpreted as meaning there is no
difference between man and animal) to mean that the superiority of man over
animal is the former's ability to say "ayin" (No!)
If one leaves his picnic basket unattended on a farm for a few moments,
inevitably, the cow or the goat will be poking its head in the basket and
eating the food. But, we may ask - how can he do that? The food is not his!
The answer is that when an animal sees food or smells food, it wants the
food and it eats food. It does not ask any questions. This is the nature of
animals. Their passions and instincts control them.
On a very basic level, human beings must know that not everything is theirs
to take. Forgetting for a moment the issue of the laws of Kashrus [Kosher
Food laws], a person can not just take food that looks appealing, if the
food does not belong to him! That level of inhibition separates man from
beast. Man can say, "Yes I know that I am hungry and I would like the food
very much but I can't take it because it's not mine."
As Jews, we have many more restrictions. However, the ability of all people
to abstain and say "No" distinguishes them from animals. That represents
being created in G-d's Image. Man's awareness that certain things are
morally "off-limits" for him is what defines him as a G-d - like creature.
On that fateful day, when the first man ate from the Tree of Knowledge, he
diminished his Image of G-d. G-d told him "do not eat". The snake came and
said "but it looks so enticing and it tastes so wonderful". The snake
convinced Adam and he ate from the Tree of Knowledge. He let his passions,
to a certain extent, control him. Those grapes that he ate diminished his
"Tzelem Elokim".
Likewise, this Sotah - if she has in fact done what she was accused of - has
also lost her "Tzelem Elokim". A woman who has been unfaithful to her
husband, who has given in to her passions, has, in effect, lost the ability
to say "No". She has again altered the "Tzelem Elokim". That is why the
Sotah ritual - uncharacteristic of virtually any other halacha - consists of
purposely humiliating the woman. In general, even when a Jewish Court
administers the death penalty or lashes to an individual, the halacha is
very specific about "choosing a compassionate form of death". Beis Din
[Jewish Court of Law] is consistently warned to remember the admonishment of
"Love your neighbor as yourself" when administering punishments.
The exception to this rule is the Sotah. Imagine the scene. She comes into
court. Her hair covering is ripped off. Her hair is purposely messed up. Her
clothing is torn and made to hang on her. She is literally publicly
humiliated.
There is a message here. We do not usually humiliate people. Why? They are
"Tzelem Elokim". But this woman has diminished her "Tzelem Elokim". She has
brought this upon herself. She has humiliated herself! Beis Din is just
bringing out into the open the humiliation that she has already brought
upon herself in private. She is the one who has given into her passions and
her lusts, thereby humiliating the "Tzelem Elokim" within her. The Court is
merely administering "tokenism" vis a vis what she has already done to
herself. [Note: Even if she in fact did not commit adultery, she would at
least be guilty of secluding herself (Yichud) with another man and of
violating her husband's specific warning (Kinui) not to allow herself to be
in the private company of that individual.]
The potential Nazir sees all of this. He sees a woman who has diminished the
"Tzelem Elokim". He sees this amazing scene of the court humiliating her to
emphasize the diminishment that she has caused to the "Tzelem Elokim". The
Sages therefore advise him "take a vow to abstain from wine" - go back to
the source of the problem. Go back to the original sin and stop eating
grapes and wine, because that is where it all started. It all started with
the first man, when Adam gave in to his desires. The correction of the
problem of the diminution of the Image of G-d amongst mankind lies in
reversing Adam's original sin.
The Way To Raise a Nazir Is To Be A Nazir
Rav Schwab also provides a tremendously novel interpretation of certain
pasukim in this week's Haftorah. We learn of the famous story of Shimshon
[Samson]. An angel told Manoach and his wife that they would have a child.
This was to be a special child who would be a Nazir for life. Even during
her pregnancy, Manoch's wife was forbidden to consume wine or grapes. The
child was to be a Nazir literally from the time of conception.
Later in the chapter, Manoach prayed to G-d that the angel should return to
him and his wife because "I have to know how I am to raise this child". The
question can be asked, what was Manoach really asking for here? The angel
already conveyed the basic information that was necessary to know: The child
will be a nazir and the mother should not drink wine or eat grapes even
during her pregnancy. What more is there to know?
It is unlikely to suppose that Manoach was asking for information about the
laws of being a nazir. For that information one does not need an angel.
Manoach should simply go to his Rabbi or Judge and study the laws of
Nezirus.
Nevertheless, the angel did return. What did he tell Manoach in response to
his request? "From everything that I warned your wife, guard (tishamer). Do
not consume that which comes from the grape of the vine, etc." [Shoftim
13:13-14]. So what in fact is new in the angel's answer? He just seems to be
repeating what he already told Manoach's wife!
Rav Schwab explains that Manoach did not have a question regarding the laws
of being a Nazir (a 'Nezirus shaylah'). He was asking a question regarding
the laws of raising children (a 'Chinuch shaylah'). "How," asked Manoach,
"can I raise a Nazir, if I myself am not a Nazir?" He was asking how one can
raise a child to do something if the father himself does not do those same
things.
According to Rav Schwab, the angel responded, "Yes, in fact, you must also
observe these laws yourself". This is an elementary principle in child
raising, but it is a tremendously novel interpretation of the pasuk in
Shoftim. In Hebrew grammar, the verb "Tishamer," which appears in the
angel's instructions to Manoach can be interpreted in one of two ways. The
standard interpretation is "SHE should guard HERself" (third person,
referring to Manoach's wife). Rav Schwab interprets the word in accordance
with the second possible translation: "YOU should guard YOURself" (second
person, referring to Manoach).
The angel was conceding Manoach's point: You are correct that if you do not
observe the Nazirite laws yourself, you will never be able to succeed in
raising a Nazir. Therefore, the solution to the problem is for you to keep
these laws yourself. "From everything that I warned your wife - guard
yourself against, as well!" "Do as I say, not as I do" is terrible pedagogy.
Rather, one must teach "Do as I do".
Again, while this is a very novel interpretation of the pasuk, it is one of
the most basic principles of education. We cannot preach to children. The
only way to teach is by example.
There is a famous incident told about the Rebbe of Ger. A disciple
complained to the Rebbe that his son was not learning. "I've tried
everything. I've tried encouragement, I've tried incentives, I've tried
punishment, and I've tried taking things away. Nothing works. What should I
do? I want my son to learn."
The Rebbe asked the disciple one question: "Does the boy's father learn
himself?" All the speeches in the world will not make one iota of
difference. Children learn by example.
This rule applies to all aspects of child raising. If one wants to raise a
Nazir, he must be a Nazir himself. If one wants to raise a decent and honest
Jewish person, then he himself must be a decent and honest Jewish person.
This week's write-up is adapted from the hashkafa portion of Rabbi Yissocher
Frand's Commuter Chavrusah Torah Tapes on the weekly Torah portion (# 331).
The corresponding halachic portion for this tape is: Must a Kallah Cover Her
Hair at the Chasunah? The complete list of halachic portions for this parsha
from the Commuter Chavrusah Series are:
Also Available: Mesorah / Artscroll has published a collection of Rabbi Frand's essays. The book is entitled:
and is available through your local Hebrew book store or from Project Genesis, 1-410-654-1799.
