Commentary for Numbers 6:11

מאשר חטא על הנפש [AND THE PRIEST … MAKE EXPIATION FOR HIM] FOR THAT HE HATH SINNED BY THE DEAD — i.e., that he has not been on his guard against defilement by a corpse. — R. Eleazer ha-Kappar said, “his sin consists in that he has afflicted himself by abstaining from the enjoyment of wine (Sifrei Bamidbar 30; Nazir 19a).

He inflicted suffering on himself. This implies that there was a transgression in abstaining from wine. You might ask: [How can we reconcile this with] Rashi’s explanation above that whoever sees a sotah in her decadence should take the nazirite vow against wine, [because wine can] lead to promiscuity. One answer is that it is certainly a mitzvah to take the nazirite vow against wine, but nonetheless it involves a minor transgression in causing oneself suffering by abstaining from wine. This is similar to one who fasts on Shabbos following a disturbing dream, this affliction of fasting likened to the great mitzvah of rejoicing on Shabbos, but nonetheless one has to fast again afterwards for one day to make up for fasting on Shabbos. Tosafos explain that the same is true here (Bava Kamma 91). Another answer is that it is certainly a mitzvah to abstain from wine, which intoxicates and leads to promiscuity. However new wine does not intoxicate, and [similarly] grapes, seeds and skins [so] this is the transgression of suffering by abstaining from them. You might ask: Since the Torah juxtaposed the chapter of the nazir to the chapter of the sotah it is implied that there is a mitzvah to take a nazirite vow against all types of wine and grapes in the manner of a nazir. The answer is that because one may not be able to restrain oneself and will be drawn after wine — which carries one even further — thus the Torah commanded one to take a nazirite vow against everything. As we say to the nazir “turn away, do not come close to the vineyard”. If nothing bad could come of it there would certainly have been a mitzvah to occasionally drink a little, because “wine and aromatic spices make one wise”. (R. Y. Triosh)

AND THE PRIEST SHALL PREPARE ONE FOR A SIN-OFFERING. The reason why a Nazirite must bring a sin-offering when the days of his Naziritehood are fulfilled¹⁰⁵Verse 13. has not been explained.¹⁰⁶Generally a sin-offering is brought for atonement of a sin committed in error. But here the Nazirite has kept his days of consecration in complete fulfillment of his vow. So the question arises: Why did Scripture oblige him to bring a sin-offering? In accordance with the plain meaning of Scripture, [it is because] this man sins against his soul on the day of completion of his Naziritehood; for until now he was separated in sanctity and the service of G-d, and he should therefore have remained separated forever, continuing all his life consecrated and sanctified to his G-d, as it is said, And I raised up of your sons for prophets, and of your young men for Nazirites,¹⁰⁷Amos 2:11. where Scripture compares the Nazirite to a prophet, and as it is written, All the days of his Naziritehood he is holy unto the Eternal.¹⁰⁸Verse 8. Thus [when he completes his Naziritehood and returns to his normal life] he requires atonement, since he goes back to be defiled by [material] desires of the world.

מאשר חטא על הנפש, “for having sinned through contact with a corpse ”The incident is best compared to Judges 20,16: קולע אל השערה ולא יחטיא, “warriors accurate sling a stone and not to miss a hair that their arrow was aimed at.” Just as there are no warriors that are so accurate, so for a person when imbibing wine, it is impossible not to be affected by its effect on the body. In our verse, the Nazir, if he had been more circumspect would not have exposed himself to contact with a dead body. [His guilt, of course, was not intentional. Ed.]

מאשר חטא על הנפש, “for having sinned by reason of the dead.” (He should have made sure that the building he entered did not contain a corpse) The Torah had specifically warned him not to enter such a building in verse 6 of our chapter.

וקדש את ראשו AND HE SHALL HALLOW HIS HEAD [THAT SAME DAY] by beginning again the counting of his Nazaritehood (i.e., he resumes his Nazaritehood).

However, there is an ethical place to interpret the words of Rabbi Elazar in another way, and to say that this is why the nazir is called a sinner because if he was an innocent and honest man, he would not feel the need to make an oath and be careful, because who will stop him from separating himself and distancing himself from things that are permitted without this oath? The fact that he felt the need to make a vow to become a nazir is because he knows his own spirit that he can't stop himself. This is why he takes actions and swears against the evil inclination. This causes him pain because anything that you prohibit from yourself via an oath, the evil inclination attacks him the most. It is because of this that he is considered a sinner , as we learned "And when you will cease to vow you will not sin" ( Deuteronomy 22:22 ) This is how the evil inclination provokes and tells him is not enough what the Torah forbade you in the evil inclinations imprisonment and you needed to add to it, because in everything the Torah forbade even though that caused us to be provoked by the evil inclination as it is written that he provokes Israel more than the other nations ( Sukkah)In any case, the two will stand against him - the written Torah, and the oral Torah.

That is that He commanded us that a nazarite should grow his hair. And that is His, may He be blessed, saying, "he shall let grow untrimmed, the hair of his head " (Numbers 6:5). And the language of the Mekhilta is, "'He shall be holy' - its growth is to be in holiness; 'and he shall let grow untrimmed' - is a positive commandment. And from where [do we know that it is also] a negative commandment? [Hence] we learn to say, 'no razor shall touch his head.'" And it is said there, "This is what I have given as a positive commandment [only] - one who scrubs [his scalp] with earth and one who places herbs" - meaning when a nazarite puts them on his head to remove the hair, he would then not be transgressing the negative commandment. For he did not remove it in the manner of a razor. He did however transgress the positive commandment, which is, "he shall let grow untrimmed" - and this one did not grow [it]. As a negative commandment derived from a positive commandment is a positive commandment - that is a principle with us. And the laws of this commandment have already been explained in Tractate Nazir. (See Parashat Nasso; Mishneh Torah, Nazariteship 1.)