nazir

i meant to write this up before shabbos but i didnt get a chance.  hopefully this isnt like avar yomo batel karbano. (anyone reading this?)

The ramban writes, why does a nazir bring a chatas at the end of his nezirus - ועל דרך הפשט כי האיש הזה חוטא נפשו במלאת הנזירות, כי הוא עתה נזור מקדושתו ועבודת השם, וראוי היה לו שיזיר לעולם ויעמוד כל ימיו נזיר וקדוש לאלהיו, כענין שאמר (עמוס ב יא) ואקים מבניכם לנביאים ומבחוריכם לנזירים, השוה אותו הכתוב לנביא, וכדכתיב (לעיל פסוק ח) כל ימי נזרו קדוש הוא לה' והנה הוא צריך כפרה בשובו להטמא בתאוות העולם:

the reason is, says the ramban, that the nazir is sinning by leaving the spiritual heights of nezirus and coming back to regular every day life.

according to the ramban, a nazir is not a sinner, despite some statements of chazal to that effect.  a nazir, the ramban points out, is compared to a navi.

the ramban's shittah is in contrast to that of rashi, who accepts chazal's statement that a nazir is a sinner as normative.  thus, rashi in parshas naso quotes the chazal that the sin of the nazir that mandates his bringing a karbon is  שציער עצמו מן היין.  how does rashi explain the pesukim in amos which compare a nazir to a navi? rashi in amos explains:  לנזרים - תרגם יונתן למלפין שהיו פרושין מדרכי עם הארץ ועוסקים בתורה - the nazir is amos is not referring to the halachic concept of nezirus found in naso - rather, it means the gedolei torah vihoraah who separate themselves from the ways of normal people to learn and teach torah.  when the pesukim in amos go on to describe the sin of the nazir drinking wine (which would seem to support the ramban's position that the nazir referred to here is the classical nazir), rashi explains: ותשקו את הנזירים יין - שלא יורו אתכם שהשיכור אסור להורות, ותשקו את הנזירים יין, תרגם יונתן ואטעיתון ית מלפיכון בחמר - the sin the navi is referring to is teaching torah while drunk, but it is not connected whatsoever to the prohibition of a classical nazir to drink wine, because the pesukim here arent talking about a classical nazir.  we couldnt compare a classical nazir to a navi - a nazir is a sinner!

whats interesting is the rambam's take on this issue.  on the one hand, the rambam (deos 3) also accepts as normative chazal's statement that a nazir is a sinner: שמא יאמר אדם הואיל והקנאה והתאוה והכבוד וכיוצא בהם דרך רעה הן ומוציאין את האדם מן העולם. אפרוש מהן ביותר ואתרחק לצד האחרון. עד שלא יאכל בשר ולא ישתה יין ולא ישא אשה ולא ישב בדירה נאה ולא ילבש מלבוש נאה אלא השק והצמר הקשה וכיוצא בהן כגון כהני העובדי כוכבים. גם זה דרך רעה היא ואסור לילך בה. המהלך בדרך זו נקרא חוטא. שהרי הוא אומר בנזיר וכפר עליו מאשר חטא על הנפש. אמרו חכמים ומה אם נזיר שלא פירש אלא מן היין צריך כפרה המונע עצמו מכל דבר ודבר על אחת כמה וכמה.

and yet, at the end of hilchos nezirus, the rambam writes like the ramban that a nazir is compared to a navi - הנודר לה' דרך קדושה הרי זה נאה ומשובח ועל זה נאמר נזר אלהיו על ראשו קדש הוא לה'. ושקלו הכתוב כנביא (שנאמר) ואקים מבניכם לנביאים ומבחוריכם לנזירים:   how can the rambam take both sides at once?

this is similar to an issue i struggled with in a different context.  chazal say in brachos that the place where baalei teshuva stand is greater than that of regular tzaddikim.  rabbeinu yonah (somewhere in pirkei avos, i believe perek 3) asks, how could it be that baalei teshuvah are greater than tzaddikim who never sinned?  how could you be better off sinning - how could you lose out by totally following ratzon hashem?  because of this question, he drastically re-interprets the gemara.  but the rambam takes the gemara literally: אמרו חכמים מקום שבעלי תשובה עומדין אין צדיקים גמורין יכולין לעמוד בו. כלומר מעלתן גדולה ממעלת אלו שלא חטאו מעולם מפני שהן כובשים יצרם יותר מהם.

so was your sin a mitzvah - after all, it allowed you to come closer to hashem.  surely the answer is no.  and yet, there were definitely positive benefits achieved through that sin.

nazir is the flip case of the baal teshuvah.  really, a nazir is like a navi, as the rambam said in hilchos nezirus.  but that doesnt mean that there isnt also an element of sin in becoming a nazir.   some aveiros have an aspect of mitzvah within them, and some mitzvos have an aspect of aveirah within them.

how do we understand this?  either an action is ratzon hashem, in which case its entirely a mitzvah, or its not ratzon hashem, in which case its entirely aveirah.

ratzon hashem is multifaceted.  hashem wants many different things on many different levels, and sometimes, the multiplicity of values that hashem is after conflict.  we have to choose one action or another - one value has to override the other.  but that doesnt mean the negated value is gone. while doing a mitzvah, there can still be a tzad aveirah shebo or vica versa.

my mashal to understand this is as follows: compare two people, one a yaakov ish tam his entire life and one, who while now he looks just like the first guy, used to party/get drunk/do drugs / that type of stuff.   whose a better candidate to do kiruv by hanging out with non-religious people in bars and drinking with them?  obviously the second guy.  so is he better off because of his sins?  in some sense, yes.  he has a chance to do a tremendous mitzvah the first guy doesn't have because of his sins.  but in another sense, obviously not.  the purity of the first guy is clearly unmatched by that of the second.

about this it is said, hanistaros lashem elokeinu - we cant know how everything we do may ultimately be for good.  vihaniglos lanu ulvaneinu ad olam, laasos es kol divrei hatorah hazos - our job is to keep the torah to the best of our abilities, and through that, everything will work out.