Midrash for Numbers 6:5

4) "his head": Why is this written? (i.e., Why is the above generalization not sufficient to include it?) Because it is written (of a Nazirite, Bamidbar 6:5) "a blade shall not pass over his head, I might think (that this includes) even a leprous (Nazirite); it is, therefore, written "his head." "his beard": Why is this written? Because it is written (of Cohanim, Vayikra 21:5): "the corner of their beard they shall not shave off," I might think (that this includes) even a leprous (Cohein); it is, therefore, written "his beard." Why mention both "his head" and "his beard"? (i.e., Why can one not be derived from the other?) — Because there obtain (strictures) with head which do not obtain with beard, and with beard, which do not obtain with head — The head (of a Nazirite) is forbidden both with scissors and with blade, and the (destruction of the) beard does not obtain with scissors; the head is permitted with all men (who are not Nazirites), and the (destruction of the beard is forbidden with all men — Because there obtain with head (strictures) which do not obtain with beard, and with beard (strictures) which do not obtain with head, there must be written (to include for the shaving of the leper) both "his head" and "his beard."

6) "Then he shall be shaved": even if he is a Nazirite. Because it is written (of a Nazirite, Bamidbar 6:5) "a razor shall not pass over his head," I might think even if he was afflicted (with leprosy); it is, therefore, written "Then he shall be shaved" — even if he was afflicted.

Similarly, Absalom was punished by the very thing with which he prided himself, as it is said: Now in all Israel there was none to be so much praised as Absalom for his beauty; from the soul of his feet to the crown of his head there was no blemish in him … and when he polled his head … now it was every year’s end that he polled it (II Sam. 14:25–26). R. Nehorai stated: He was a Nazirite, yet he cut his hair every thirty days,¹⁰Nazirites are forbidden to cut their hair (Num. 6:5). as it is said: Now at the end of the days he polled it. R. Judah maintained that he was a Nazirite throughout his life, yet he cut his hair every twelve months, as it is said: And it came to pass at the end of forty years that Absalom said unto the king: “I pray thee, let me go and pay my vow, which I have vowed unto the Lord in Hebron. For thy servant vowed a vow while I abode at Geshur in Aram, saying: If the Lord shall indeed bring me back to Jerusalem, then I will serve the Lord” (II Sam. 15:7–8).

(Bamidbar 6:5) "All the days of the vow of his Naziritism (a blade shall not pass over his head."): Scripture now leaves the subject of wine and comes to speak of shaving. "All the days of the vow of his Naziritism": His vow (i.e., his offerings) is contingent upon his Naziritism (i.e., If he vows to be a Nazirite, then after his (period of) Naziritism he must bring his offerings), and his Naziritism is not contingent upon his vow (i.e., If he vows to bring the offering, he need not become a Nazirite.) "a blade shall not pass over his head": to equate the shaver with the shaved one (i.e., one who shaves him is liable, as is the shaved one himself). "a blade shall not pass over his head": This tells me only of a blade. Whence do I derive that he also receives forty lashes for tearing, plucking, and trimming? From "holy shall he be," in any event. These are the words of R. Yoshiyah. R. Yonathan says: Scripture speaks (only) of a blade. If he tore, plucked, or trimmed, he does not receive stripes. "until the fulfillment of the days of his Naziritism to the L-rd": Whence is it derived that if one vows to be a Nazirite without qualifying (for how long), he shaves on the thirty-first day, and if he shaved on the thirtieth day he has fulfilled his obligations? From "until the fulfillment of the day of his Naziritism to the L-rd" — and they have been fulfilled. I might think that even if he vowed a one hundred day Naziritism and he shaved on the thirty-first day he has fulfilled his obligation; it is, therefore, written "until the fulfillment of his days," and he has not yet fulfilled them. This tells me (only) of one whose (period of) Naziritism is limited. Whence do I derive (the same for) one who vowed "eternal" Naziritism (i.e., that he must be a Nazirite all of his days)? From "all the days of the vow of his Naziritism … holy shall he be." "holy shall he be": You say that this refers to holiness of (i.e., not shaving) the hair. But perhaps it refers to the holiness of the body (i.e., not to become defiled by the dead). (This is not so, for) (Ibid. 8) "He is holy to the L-rd" speaks of holiness of the body. How, then, am I to understand "holy shall he be"? As referring to holiness of the hair, "holy shall he be": What is the intent of this? Because it is written (Ibid. 18) "And the Nazirite shall shave at the door of the tent of meeting," I would think that only the hair of one who shaves as prescribed is forbidden and imposes constraints. How would I know (that the same applies) if vandals shaved him? From "holy shall he be" — in any event. R. Yossi says: Why is it written "holy shall he be"? Because it is written "he shall let grow the locks of the hair of his head," I might think (that Naziritism obtains only) with one who has hair. Whence do I derive (that it also obtains) with one who does not have hair? From "holy shall he be" — in any event. R. Yonathan says: It is not needed (for the above), for it is written (Ibid. 7) "for the crown of his G-d is on his head" — whether or not he has hair. What, then, is the intent of "holy shall he be"? As we stated above (in respect to "eternal" Naziritism). Unqualified Naziritism is thirty days, it being written "holy shall he be ("yiheyeh"): The numerical equivalent of "yiheyeh" is thirty. "he shall let grow the locks of the hair of his head." Why is this written? (i.e., it is already written "a blade shall not pass over his head.") It is written (of a leper, Vayikra 14:9) "And it shall be on the seventh day that he shall shave all of his hair." This implies even a Nazirite (leper). And how would I understand "he shall let grow the locks of the hair of his head"? As applying to other Nazirites, excluding the leper. Or, perhaps, even a Nazirite (leper). It is, therefore, written "he shall let grow the locks ('pera') of the hair of his head." From here you learn of the leper, of whom it is written (Vayikra 13:45) "And his head shall be parua" that "parua" means "grown long." You say it means that, but perhaps it is to be taken literally (as meaning "uncovered.") You, therefore, reason as follows: It is written here (in respect to a leper) "parua," and elsewhere, (in respect to a Nazirite) "parua" (i.e., "pera," like "parua"). Just as there (re Nazirite), "parua" means growing the hair, so, "parua" here (re leper) means growing the hair. "All the days of the vow of his Naziritism (a blade shall not pass over his head."): (A Nazirite who shaved his head at the end of his period of Naziritism [before he brought the offering, etc.] is liable,) it being written "All the days of the vow of his Naziritism a blade shall not pass over his head" — to include the days after the termination of his period of Naziritism before the bringing of his offering (as in the above-cited instance) as equivalent (for liability) to the days in the midst of his Naziritism. — But perhaps he is liable (for shaving his head) only if he does so before he completes his period of Naziritism! — (No,) it follows (that this is not so,) viz.: Since he is forbidden to drink wine and he is forbidden to shave, if I have learned about wine that the days after the termination of his period of Naziritism before the bringing of his offering were equated with the days in the midst of the period of his Naziritism, the same must be true of shaving. And, furthermore, this follows a fortiori, viz.: If re wine, the drinking of which does not void (the count of his preceding Nazirite days), the days after his Nazirite period before the bringing of his offering were equated (for liability) with the days in the midst of his Nazirite period, then re shaving, which does void (the Nazirite count), how much more so should this be true! — (No,) this may be true of the drinking of wine, where no act in its category (the drinking of wine by a Nazirite) was permitted — wherefore the days after his Nazirite period before the bringing of the offering were equated with the days in the midst of his Nazirite period — but would you say the same for shaving, where an act in its category (the shaving of a Nazirite leper on the seventh day) was permitted — wherefore we would say that the days after his Nazirite period before the bringing of the offering were not equated with the days in the midst of his Nazirite period! — (No!) This is refuted by the instance of tumah (a Nazir's defiling himself with a dead body), where though there is an act in its category which is permitted (i.e., a Nazir's defiling himself for a meth mitzvah [one who has no kin to bury him]), still the days after his Nazirite period before the bringing of the offering were equated with the days in the midst of his Nazirite period! And this would indicate about shaving, that even though there is an act in its category which is permitted, still, the days after the Nazirite period before the bringing of the offering are to be equated with the days in the midst of the Nazirite period. — No, this may be true of tumah, which voids the whole (previous) count, which is not so with shaving, which does not void the whole. I have not succeeded (in proving the equality) with my a fortiori argument. It is, therefore, written (Ibid. 20) "and thereafter (i.e., after bringing the offering), the Nazirite may drink wine." Now may a Nazirite drink wine? But (the idea is that) it (the word "Nazirite") is "extra" to signal a gezeirah shavah (identity), viz.: it is written here (in respect to shaving [6:5]) "nazir," and it is written elsewhere (20) "nazir" (in respect to the drinking of wine). Just as with (the "extra") "nazir" there, the days after his Nazirite period before the bringing of the offering are equated with the days in the midst of the Nazirite period, so, with shaving. (6:5) "He shall let grow the locks of the hair of his head." Why is this written? (i.e., it is already written [Ibid.] "a blade shall not pass over his head until the fulfillment of the days when he is a Nazirite to the L-rd.") From "until the fulfillment of the days," I would think that this ("fulfillment") is satisfied by a minimum of two days; it is, therefore, written "He shall let grow the hair of the locks of his head." How long does this take? Not less than thirty days. But (if he said: I will be a Nazirite) a month and above — even a month and one day or a month and two days, (he is a Nazirite for any period superadded.)

40) (Vayikra 10:6): "Your heads al tifrau (lit., 'do not uncover')": I might take this to mean that you should not remove your hat, but we derive (otherwise), viz.: It is written here periah ("tifrau"), and elsewhere, (in respect to a Nazirite, Bamidbar 6:5), "periah." Just as "periah" there refers to letting the hair grow long; here, too, it refers to letting the hair grow long, (so that the translation above becomes "Your hair do not grow long" (in mourning).