Midrash for Numbers 6:11

Samuel said: "A man who fasteth is called a sinner"; for it is said (Num. 6, 11) And he shall make atonement for him, for that he sinned with his soul. Wherein did he sin with his soul? We must say that it refers to the sin of having abstained from wine. He holds the same opinion as we are taught in a Baraitha of the Tana, R. Elazar Hakapar the Great, who says: "Is this not an a fortiori reasoning? If one abstains from drinking wine he is called a sinner; how much more should one be called a sinner if he abstains from everything (i.e., fasts)." R. Elazar, however, says: "On the contrary, he is called holy; as it is said (Ib. 5) He shall be holy, he shall let the locks of the hair of his head grow long. Is this not proved a fortiori? If one who simply obstains from wine is termed holy, how much more so should one who abstains from everything (i.e., fasts) be termed holy?" But how will Samuel explain the passage that calls such a man holy? This refers only to one who lets his hair grow. But how will R. Elazar explain the passage that calls such a man a sinner? This applies only to one who defiles himself. Did R. Elazar indeed say that fasting is a sin? Behold, R. Elazar said: "A man shall always think of himself (Ib. b.) as if sanctity rests within his entrails; for it is said (Hos. 11, 9) The Holy One is within thee." This is not difficult to explain. The latter refers to a case where one can endure the pains of abstinence, but the former refers to a case where he could not endure suffering. Resh Lakish said: "Such a man [who does not fast] is to be termed Chasid (pious); as it is said (Pr. 11, 17) He who takes care of his soul is a pious man." R. Jeremiah b. Abba said in the name of Resh Lakish: "It is not lawful for a scholar to fast, because through [wickedness of] fasting he diminishes Heavenly work." R. Shesheth said: "If a young scholar sitteth and fasteth, a dog may even eat his meal." [for he remains without health to study the Torah]

(Fol. 19) We are taught in a Baraitha: R. Elazar Hakappar the Great, said: "What is the meaning of the passage (Num. 6, 11) And make an atonement for him, because he hath sinned through the soul? With what soul has that Nazir sinned? We must therefore say that it refers to the suffering borne through abstaining from wine. Now is this not a fortiori reasoning? If the Nazir is called sinner only because he abstained from wine, how much more so should one, abstaining himself from everything, be called sinner? But the passage deals with a case where the Nazir defiled himself, and perhaps only on account of defilment is he called sinner? Nevertheless, R. Elazar Hakappar holds that even a clean Nazir is called a sinner, and the reason why the passage used the word [sin] for a defiled Nazir is because he repeated his sin [by having defiled himself.]

3) (Vayikra 5:7) "one for a sin-offering and one for a burnt-offering": (The dedication of) the sin-offering must precede (the dedication of) the burnt-offering. Alternately: that the burnt-offering be of the same species as the sin-offering (turtle-dove or young pigeon, respectively) (and that) if he separated his sin-offering and died, his heirs bring his burnt-offering. Alternately: What is the intent of "one for a sin-offering and one for a burnt-offering?" I might think that since two (birds) are brought in place of a (lamb) sin-offering, they should both be sin-offerings, it is, therefore, written "one for a sin-offering" — and not two; "one for a burnt-offering" — and not two.