It's more than just letting your hair grow long!
The Book of Numbers (6:6) states: “All the days of his abstinence to the Lord, he shall not approach a dead person.” Bamidbar Rabbah, a classic midrashic (rabbinic interpretive commentary) text, uses this verse as a springboard to explore the elevated status of the nazir. It proposes a powerful idea: "anyone who sanctifies himself below, they sanctify him above." The efforts we make towards holiness here on earth are mirrored, amplified even, in the heavenly realms.
How does a person become a nazir? By taking a vow to abstain from wine, avoid cutting their hair, and remain ritually pure by avoiding contact with the dead. It's a commitment that sets them apart. And according to the Rabbis, this act of self-sanctification elevates the nazir to a status akin to that of a High Priest!
Consider this: Just as a High Priest is forbidden to come into contact with the dead, so too is the nazir. The Torah states regarding the High Priest, “For the crown of the anointing oil of his God is on him” (Leviticus 21:12), and similarly, regarding the nazir, it says, “For the crown of his God is on his head” (Numbers 6:7). And just as it is written regarding the priest, “Aaron was set apart, to sanctify him as most holy” (I (Chronicles 23:1)3), so too the nazir is called holy, as it is stated, “All the days of his naziriteship he is holy to the Lord” (Numbers 6:8). The Rabbis noticed these parallels and drew a profound conclusion.
But isn't growing long hair potentially…unseemly? The Midrash anticipates this question. Doesn't long hair, which can be difficult to keep clean, make a person repulsive? The answer is a resounding NO! Because the nazir grows their hair "for the sake of Heaven," it becomes a crown. It's a physical manifestation of a spiritual commitment. A visible sign of their dedication.
The text goes on to discuss the ramifications of breaking the nazir vow. Even after the designated period of the vow is complete, but before the required sacrifices are brought, the restrictions remain in place! If the nazir drinks wine, shaves, or comes into contact with a corpse during this interim period, they are liable to receive forty lashes. The Rabbis meticulously derive this from the language of the Torah. (Numbers 6:4) states that “All the days of his naziriteship [from anything that may be derived from the grapevine…he shall not eat],” which renders the days after completion like the days before completion.
Interestingly, there are differing levels of stringency associated with the three prohibitions. Contact with a corpse and shaving the head are considered more serious violations than consuming grape products because they invalidate the entire period of the nazir vow. As for consuming grape products, there is no allowance at all, but shaving can be permitted for a mitzvah, such as in the case of a leper. And becoming impure is permitted for a met mitzvah – a corpse with no one else to bury it.
The text also explores the specific cases where a nazir must remain pure, even from close relatives. (Numbers 6:7) states: “For his father and for his mother […he shall not become impure].” Rabbi Yishmael explains that the phrase "lo yavo" (he shall not approach) refers to those who become impure through entering the same space as a corpse. The verse specifies "for his father" to emphasize that, unlike a regular priest who is allowed to become impure for close relatives, the nazir is not.
Why then mention "and for his mother"? Rabbi says that this teaches us that "upon their deaths he may not become impure, but for their leprosy or for their ziva" (a ritual impurity described in Leviticus 15) he may become impure. This subtle distinction highlights the complexity of Jewish law and the importance of careful textual interpretation.
Rabbi Akiva offers a different perspective, suggesting that the term nefesh (soul) refers to those who are unrelated, while met (dead) refers to relatives. This interpretation further refines our understanding of the nazir's obligations.
The passage concludes by emphasizing that while the nazir must avoid impurity even for close relatives, they are permitted to become impure for a met mitzvah. They can attend the eulogy and comfort the mourners. All of this stands in contrast to the High Priest, who must avoid these situations altogether. The final verse reminds us that "For the crown of his God is on his head,” to relate what is the cause.
So, what does all this mean for us today? Perhaps it's a reminder that even seemingly small acts of self-discipline and dedication can have a profound impact, elevating us closer to the Divine. And that, my friends, is something worth pondering.
“All the days of his abstinence to the Lord, he shall not approach a dead person” (Numbers 6:6). “All the days of his abstinence to the Lord….” Come and see that anyone who sanctifies himself below, they sanctify him above. This one, because he abstains from wine and conducts himself with suffering in that he does not shave the hair of his head in order to protect himself from transgression, the Holy One blessed be He says: ‘He is considered before Me like a High Priest.’ Just as it is prohibited for a priest to become impure for all corpses, so it is prohibited for a nazirite to become impure for all corpses. Just as regarding the High Priest, it is written: “For the crown of the anointing oil of his God is on him” (Leviticus 21:12), so, by the nazirite it says: “For the crown of his God is on his head” (Numbers 6:7). Just as regarding the priest, it is written: “Aaron was set apart, to sanctify him as most holy” (I Chronicles 23:13), so, the nazirite is called holy, as it is stated: “All the days of his naziriteship he is holy to the Lord” (Numbers 6:8). Come and see how much the mitzvot adorn Israel. Does growing hair long not render a person repulsive, as he is unable to shampoo his hair? But because he grows it for the sake of Heaven, the verse characterizes it as a crown for his head. That is what is written: “For the crown of his God is on his head.” “All the days of his abstinence...” – a nazirite whose days are completed110But who did not yet bring the sacrifice which terminates the naziriteship. is forbidden to drink, to shave, and to become impure due to dead people. If he shaved, drank wine, or became impure due to dead people, he incurs forty lashes. Regarding wine, from where is it derived that he is flogged? It is written: “All the days of his naziriteship [from anything that may be derived from the grapevine…he shall not eat]” (Numbers 6:4), rendering the days after completion like the days before completion. Regarding shaving, from where is it derived? It is as it is written: “All the days of the vow of his naziriteship, [a razor shall not pass on his head]” (Numbers 6:5), to include the days after completion like the days before completion. Regarding impurity, from where is it derived? It is as it is written: “All the days of his abstinence to the Lord, [he shall not approach a dead person],” rendering the days after completion like the days before completion. Three categories are prohibited for the nazirite; impurity, shaving, and what is derived from the grapevine. Impurity, from where is it derived? It is as it is written: “All the days of his abstinence to the Lord, [he shall not approach] a dead person.” Shaving, from where is it derived? It is as it is written: “All the days of the vow of his naziriteship, a razor shall not pass on his head.” (Numbers 6:5) What is derived from the grapevine, from where is it derived? It is as it is written: “All the days of his naziriteship, from anything that may be derived from the grapevine [he shall not eat]” (Numbers 6:4). There is a stringency in impurity and shaving, more than in what may be derived from the grapevine, as impurity and shaving voids the naziriteship and what emerges from the grapevine does not void. There is a stringency in what may be derived from the grapevine, more than in impurity and shaving, as what may be derived from the grapevine has no allowance at all, but shaving for a mitzva, e.g., a leper, as it is derived from the extraneous “his head”111Leviticus 14:9. that is stated regarding the leper to include a nazirite leper, that he shaves. And there is an allowance to become impure for a met mitzva.112This is a corpse with no one to bury it. There is a stringency in impurity more than in shaving, as impurity voids everything and one is obligated to bring an offering for it, but shaving voids only thirty days and one is not obligated to bring an offering for it. “He shall not approach [lo yavo] a dead person [nefesh met].” I hear that even dead animals [nafshot behema] are included, like the matter that is stated: “One who kills an animal [nefesh behema]” (Leviticus 24:18). The verse states: “For his father and for his mother […he shall not become impure]” (Numbers 6:7); regarding what matter is the verse speaking? It is regarding dead people. Rabbi Yishmael says: This is not necessary. It says lo yavo; it is regarding the dead who impurify through bia,113Entry under the same roof as the corpse. and these are dead people. “For his father,” why is it stated? It is because it [the law] is broad regarding a common priest: “He shall not become impure from a dead person among his people” (Leviticus 21:1) and then it permits him regarding relatives: “Except for his relative [who is close to him: For his mother, for his father, for his son, for his daughter, for his brother]” (Leviticus 21:2); perhaps the same is true regarding the nazirite? The verse states: “For his father,” saying that he may not become impure for relatives. “And for his mother,” why is it stated? It is because it says regarding the nazirite: “He shall not become impure for them upon their death” (Numbers 6:7). Rabbi says: Upon their deaths he may not become impure, but for their leprosy or for their ziva,114See Leviticus 15:1–15, 25–30. he may become impure. Regarding the High Priest, from where is it derived? The verse states: “And for his mother” (Leviticus 21:11), regarding the High Priest, which was unnnecesary for me, as it is already an a fortiori inference: If in an instance where a common priest may become impure for his paternal brother, the High Priest may not become impure for his father, in an instance where a common priest may not become impure for his maternal brother, it follows that the High Priest may not become impure from his mother. If you obtained this logically, why does the verse state: “And for his mother,” regarding the High Priest? It is here in order to derive and learn a verbal analogy from it. “His mother” is stated regarding the High Priest and “his mother” is stated regarding the nazirite. Just as “his mother” that is written regarding the nazirite [is regarding her death], but he may become impure for her leprosy or for her ziva, so, too, regarding “his mother” that is written regarding the High Priest, he may become impure for her leprosy of for her ziva. “For his brother” (Numbers 6:7), why is it stated? For his brother he may not become impure, but he may become impure for a met mitzva. “And for his sister” (Numbers 6:7), why is it stated? One who was going to slaughter his Paschal lamb and to circumcise his son and he heard that a relative of his died, shall he, perhaps, become impure? You said: “He shall not become impure for them upon their death.” Shall he, perhaps, not become impure for a met mitzva? The verse states: “For his sister,” for his sister he does not become impure, but he becomes impure for a met mitzva. “For his brother” is stated to permit him to become impure for a met mitzva, which is only a prohibition: “He shall not become impure for them.” “And for his sister” is to permit him to become impure even in the place of the Paschal lamb and circumcision, for which one incurs liability for karet. But for his son and for his daughter are not stated, as minors cannot become nazirites. Rabbi Akiva says: Nefesh, these are those who are unrelated. Met, these are those who are relatives. “For his father” he may not become impure, but he may become impure for a met mitzva. If “for his father” is stated, why is “and for his mother” stated? Had his father been stated and his mother had not been stated, I would have said: This is why he may not become impure for him, because he [his status as his father] is based on presumed status, but his mother, who certainly bore him, let him become impure for her. And had the All Merciful written "his mother," I would have said: It is for his mother that he may not, as her offspring are not attributed to her, but his father, because the verse said: “By their families, by their patrilineal houses” (Numbers 1:2); let us say that he may become impure for him. That is why “for his father” is stated. “For his brother” – that were he a High Priest and a nazirite, he may not become impure for his brother, but he may become impure for a met mitzva. “And for his sister” – that were he going to slaughter his Paschal lamb or to circumcise his son, he may not become impure for his sister, but he may become impure for a met mitzva. “He shall not become impure for them upon their death,” but he stands there at the eulogy and at the line.115This is the line of those comforting the mourners. This is in contradistinction to the High Priest, who is not present at those occasions. Rabbi says: Upon their death” he does not become impure, but he becomes impure for their leprosy and for their ziva. “For the crown of his God is on his head,” to relate what is the cause.
