From: Netvort@aol.com
Sent: Sunday, May 30, 2004 2:52 AM
To: JoshHoff@aol.com
Subject: Netvort : Naso, 5764 - corrected version



                                                 The Good Earth
        
                    By Rabbi Joshua (inventively known as The Hoffer) Hoffman


 In parshas Naso, we read of the wayward wife, or the sotah. As the Torah phrases it,” Any man, if his wife shall go astray and commit a trespass against her husband, etc., The man shall bring his wife to the kohein, etc.” ( Bamidbar 5:12-15). The Torah refers to a woman  who is discovered alone with a man whom the husband had warned her not to be alone with. In order to ascertain whether or not she had relations with this man, she has to go through a process of investigation in the Beis HaMikdash. This process involves taking some dust from the floor of the mishkan, mixing it with water, erasing God’s name into the mixture, and giving the woman some of it to drink. The midrash notes that the word “ sisteh’ - shall go astray - can also mean ‘to act foolishly’ if the second letter of the word is punctuated differently, so that it is read as ‘sishteh.’ The message, says the midrash, is that adulterers do not commit that unless a spirit of foolishness enters into them. Actually, other sources in the midrash say that a person does not sin at all unless a spirit of foolishness has entered him. Sin is thus characterized as going astray from the path that God has set for us, and the rabbis are telling us that a person does not deviate from that path as long as he acts intelligently. We need to understand, however, why this message is stated specifically in regard to the sin of adultery.  

 The Sefas Emes, in explaining the special significance of the parsha of sotah as a paradigm for all sin, focuses on the process of testing the wayward woman, and specifically on the use of earth from the Beis HaMikdash in the mixture she is given to drink. If she did commit adultery, then the waters cause her to die a terrible death, while if she is innocent of the charges, she will survive and be blessed with a child. This entire process, says the Ramban, was of a miraculous nature. The rabbis tell us that the nation merited the miraculous process in which this dust was used because Avrohom said, in humility, “ I am dust and ashes.” (Bereishis 18:27). Avrohom, in saying this, was actually saying that, standing before God, he felt connected to the earth in the sense that he surrendered his personality to the purpose for which God created him from it. Adam, say the rabbis, was created from earth taken from the place on which the Beis HaMikdash would later be built. That earth, therefore, represents God’s purpose in creating man and placing him in this world, and the approach man must take to the use of the material aspects of the world in carrying out that purpose. Avrohom, by referring to himself as dust, was committing himself to fulfill that purpose and to use the physical aspects of the world in a manner that facilitated this commitment. Whenever a person sins against God, he is betraying that connection to the earth in the Beis HaMikdash originally made by Avrohom. When the sotah is tested, the kohein, who carries out the procedure of trying to ascertain whether the woman has lived up to her mandate, uses that same dust as part of the process. Marital relations are an aspect of life that involve one’s use of the physical in an intensive way, and so it is this area of sin that was chosen as a paradigm for the rest of the mitzvos of the Torah.  


The rabbis tell us that the laws of the nazir follow, in the Torah, immediately after the section of the laws of sotah to teach us that whoever sees the sotah in the midst of her being disgraced, should separate himself from wine through becoming a nazir. Rabbi Alexander Simcha Mandelbaum, in his Mima'amakim, based on the teachings of Rabbi Moshe Shapiro of Yerusholayim, explains this connection on the basis of the comments of the Sefas Emes in regard to the sotah. In both cases, there is a need to reassess one’s use of the physical aspects of the world. The restrictions that the nazir takes upon himself, not to drink wine or eat grape products, not to defile himself through contact with a dead body, and not to cut his hair, all relate to the physical. Although Rabbi Mandelbaum does not mention this, Rav Meir Simcha HaKohein of Dvinsk, in his Meshech Chochma, notes that the duration of the state of being a nazir once one has taken a vow to become one is not specified in the Torah, even though the rabbis say that it is a minimum of thirty days. Rav Meir Simcha explains that this is due to the fact that the nazir is engaged in a process of reassessment of his station in life. Therefore, he needs to determine for himself at which point he has achieved the proper balance between renouncement of certain physical pleasures and use of the physical in order to achieve his purpose in life. In a sense, the nazir is going through a process of re-invention and re-definition, and only he can know when that process of re-invention has reached its endpoint. Therefore, no specific time frame is stated, explicitly, for the process.


 Rav Meir Simcha further notes a peculiarity of the offering that a nazir must bring as an offering after he successfully completes his nezirus. The animals that the nazir  brings at this time, he says, are identical to the animals brought by the nesi’im, the princes of each tribe, for their offering at the inauguration process of the mishkan. Although Rav Meir Simcha himself explains this phenomenon in his own way, I would like to suggest an explanation that follows on his comments regarding the non-specificity of the duration of the nezirus process. As we have seen, this was due to the fact that the nazir was engaged in a process of re-definition of himself. This was true in regard to the nesi’im, as well. As we have noted in the past, the Torah spells out the offering of each nasi, even though they were all exactly the same. Ramban, quoting the midrash, explains that even though the physical content of the offering from each nasi was the same, the intentions each of the nesi’im had were unique. We have explained that the nesi’im were, in this way, correcting the mistake that they made when, during the period when donations were being made for the building of the mishkan, they waited until everyone else brought their donations, and then filled in whatever was missing. By acting in this way, and not taking the initiative to decide what to bring as a donation, they failed to bring out the unique personal element necessary in their service of God. By bringing their offerings in the way that they did now, at the inauguration of the mishkan, each nasi was bringing out his own unique personality and relationship to God through the offering. Thus, the nesi’im, in bringing their offerings at this time, were really defining themselves in terms of their service of God. Perhaps, then, this is why the nazir, who was also engaged in a process of self-definition, brought the same animals for his offering when he completed his nezirus. The process of self-definition needed to continue, until the nazir understood the balance of forces necessary to fulfill his purpose in life. Although the laws of nazir do not apply today, we, too, would do well to reassess our approach to the physical aspects of God’s world, and determine whether the approach we are following is conducive to fulfilling our own unique purpose in life.  


Note : The animals of the offering brought by the nazir who successfully completed his nezirus - the nazir tahor - were similar to those brought by the nesi’im in their offering, as stated in this corrected version. The animals of the chatas of the nazir tamei, who inadvertently defiled himself and thus did not successfully complete his nezirus, were not similar to the offering of the nesi’im, as was erroneously stated in the original version of Netvort to parshas Naso.   



Please address all correspondence to the author (Rabbi Hoffman) with the following address - JoshHoff @ AOL.com.

To subscribe to Netvort, send a message with subject line subscribe, to Netvort@aol.com. To unsubscribe, send message with subject line unsubscribe, to the same address.