While Rabbi Elazar Hakafar states that the reason for the chatas is that the nazir showed too much asceticism, others state that the reason for the chatas is that he lowered his level of keduasha.
Rabbi Frand points out that there are times that a person needs to become a nazir in order to react to circumstances. This is similar to the story of Shimon Hatzadik and the young shepherd who became a nazir to prevent temptation. While one should not have to make a neder to go to an extreme, there are times when it needs to be done.
In fact, the fact that the Torah has the Parsha of nazir next to the parsha of sotah shows that there are times when one must go to one extreme in order to prevent the problems of the other extreme.
Rabbi Sacks points out that the Rambam says both ways
The Torah does not make a direct evaluation of the nazirite. On the
one hand it calls him "holy to God" (Num. 6: 8). On the other, it
rules that when the period comes to an end the nazirite has to bring a
sin offering (Num. 6: 13-14), as if he had done something wrong.
This led to a fundamental disagreement between the rabbis in Mishnaic,
Talmudic and medieval times. According to Rabbi Elazar, and later to
Nahmanides, the nazirite is worthy of praise. He has voluntarily
chosen a higher level of holiness. The prophet Amos (2: 11) says, "I
raised up some of your sons for prophets, and your young men for
nazirites," suggesting that the nazirite, like the prophet, is a
person especially close to God. The reason he had to bring a sin
offering was that he was now returning to ordinary life. The sin lay
in ceasing to be a nazirite.
Rabbi Eliezer ha-Kappar and Shmuel held the opposite opinion. The sin
lay in becoming a nazirite in the first place, thereby denying himself
some of the pleasures of the world God created and declared good.
Rabbi Eliezer added: "From this we may infer that if one who denies
himself the enjoyment of wine is called a sinner, all the more so one
who denies himself the enjoyment of other pleasures of life." (Taanit 11a; Nedarim 10a.)
What is more puzzling is the position of Maimonides, who holds both
views, positive and negative, in the same book, his law code the
Mishneh Torah. In The Laws of Ethical Character, he adopts the
negative position of R. Eliezer ha-Kappar: "A person may say: 'Desire,
honour and the like are bad paths to follow and remove a person from
the world, therefore I will completely separate myself from them and
go to the other extreme.' As a result, he does not eat meat or drink
wine or take a wife or live in a decent house or wear decent clothing
... This too is bad, and it is forbidden to choose this way." ( Hilkhot Deot 3:1)
Yet in The Laws of the Nazirite he rules in accordance with the
positive evaluation of Rabbi Elazar: "Whoever vows to God [to become a
nazirite] by way of holiness, does well and is praiseworthy ... Indeed
Scripture considers him the equal of a prophet." (Hilkhot Nezirut 10:14.) How does any
writer come to adopt contradictory positions in a single book, let
alone one as resolutely logical as Maimonides?
Ohr Somayach :: Torah Weekly :: Parshat Nasso
by Rabbi Yaakov Asher Sinclair - www.seasonsofthemoon.com
Insights
Returning to the young man in the story told by Simon the Just we can
now understand that his “passionate urge” was an irresistible
temptation to become like the mythical Narcissus. The young man, who,
by the way, is nameless in the story, recognizes that he was
susceptible to arrogant pride and self-worship. He feared lest he
yield to a self-centeredness which leaves no room for the love of
others. And so he resorted to a very potent “therapy”: the Nazirite
vow.
By telling this story so dramatically, assuring that it would be
retold time and again throughout the ages, Simon the Just addressed
the paradox of the Nazirite practice. It is not for every man. For
most of us it is a sin to forbid that which the Torah permits. But for
those of us who are vulnerable to the temptations of narcissism the
“strong medicine” of nezirut may be necessary, if only for a while.
Rigorously pious lifestyles do not render a person immune from the
curses of narcissism. The ultimate paradox is that the Nazir, or
anyone else who lives a life of extreme religiosity, can become as
guilty as Narcissus of arrogant pride and self-worship. They can come
to project a “holier than thou” attitude towards others. The Nazir can
fail to rid himself of his self-admiration and instead become
sanctimonious, cynically convinced that he is spiritually superior to
his peers.
For example, Parsha Naso
This practice received adverse and contradictory responses throughout
Jewish thought. Some, like Nahmanides (Catalunya, XIII Century)
follow the position set in the Talmud by Rabbi Eliezer and Shmuel in
favor of the Nazir. According to these sages, the Nazir is a role
model, which we should follow not only to fulfill a promise, but to
reach a higher level of holiness throughout our lives. On the other
hand, Maimonides follows the Talmudic opinion of Rabbi Eliezer
HaKapar, who believed that in many cases a Nazir became a transgressor
as an extremist alienating himself from the Community. This
controversy regarding the Nazir continued all the way through the
centuries, and among those who also opposed this practice we find some
of the Hassidic sages.
Balancing the Extremes of Parshat Nasso
Both of these interpretations come to explain the necessary situations
in which one would assume the holy mission of becoming a Nazir.
However, we’ve previously seen that not all sources see Nezirut as a
positive undertaking. In fact, the Gemara (תענית יא:א) sees it as a
ירידה לצורך עליה, a spiritual downgrade to allow for eventually
reaching an even higher level of spirituality. R’ Elazar Hakafar
explains there that a Nazir is in fact a sinner for attempting to
change human nature. G-d created us with good and evil inclinations,
and once one attempts to remove the yetzer hara, he is effectively
taking away part of his free will, something which Rambam (הלכות דעות
ג:א) calls “wrong,” “sinning,” and “acting like priests of the idol
worshippers.”
Now that we understand that Nezirut may not be so ideal, it’s very
easy to see the significance of its juxtaposition to Sotah. The Sotah
is a woman who was too involved in her looks, and this led her to sin
by secluding herself with a man forbidden to her. On the other hand,
the Nazir is someone who goes to the other extreme- he is so afraid of
sinning, that he doesn’t let himself become involved in the physical
parts of the world, like the way he looks.
The end results are just as radically different. The Sotah’s head is
shaved as a reminder that she must involve herself less in the world,
to avoid sinning in the future (if she was innocent, that is, and
isn’t killed by the mei chatat). The Nazir is not allowed to shave his
head, possibly to emphasize to him that he must involve himself more
in the world, and that this one part of his physical looks must be
left be.
We’ve now seen that neither the Sotah nor Nazir lead ideal lifestyles,
and this juxtaposition of complete opposites is a warning against
going to either extreme.
