Quoting Commentary for I Samuel 16:2

The Talmud [must be saying that one may not search], as it derives this rule from the Prophet Samuel, who [when charged by God to go and anoint David as king] protested, “How can I go? If Saul finds out, he will kill me.”¹⁸I Sam. 16:2. Even though God commanded Samuel to anoint David, Samuel was concerned that Saul might kill him for doing so. Therefore, God told Samuel to take a calf with him so that it would appear that he was going in that direction in order to offer sacrifice. Samuel did not feign piety by placing himself in danger when there was a likelihood of harm.¹⁹The Netziv argues that Pleimo’s statement “There is no need” should be interpreted as “there is no need to search,” since it is forbidden to endanger oneself. If Pleimo was saying that searching is optional, then this law should not be derived from how Samuel refused to obey God’s command. Later on, the Netziv will discuss why God initially asked Samuel to endanger himself. [This can also be inferred] from Tractate Bava Kamma 61a–b, regarding the three mighty men of David [who risked their lives] by breaking into the camp of the Philistines [in order] to ask the Sanhedrin a halachic question. King David refused to relate this ruling in the name of the three warriors, as he said, “So have I received a tradition from the Court of Samuel the Ramathite: ‘We do not cite any halachic statement in the name of one who surrenders himself to death on account of the words of the Torah.’” The reason [for David’s declaration] was that the three mighty men behaved improperly [by placing their lives in danger for the sake of that mitzvah]. Similarly, [Rava]²⁰Some say this was stated by R. Nahman ben Yitzhak. stated in Tractate Avodah Zarah 35b regarding Aivu, who [practiced against the rulings of the Sages] by eating the bread of an idolater: “Do not cite Aviu because he eats Aramean bread.” The Ran cites in the name of the Geonim that Rava was stating that no halachah may be cited in his name because he acted improperly.²¹The rulings, in any area, of a halachic authority who violates Halachah must not be cited. The three mighty men who violated the Torah by endangering their lives in order to perform a mitzvah are similar to a halachic authority who violates any other command of the Torah, such as eating bread made by an Aramean. The three mighty men [of David] also did not act properly when they subjected themselves to danger [for the sake of a mitzvah]. This is the meaning of the warning, “Do not be overly righteous.”

אסון, a mishap brought about either by man or by direct heavenly intervention, a natural disaster, for instance. Yaakov’s fear was based on a mishap having befallen Joseph at the time (as he had been led to believe). The Talmud in Ketuvot 30 describes mishaps caused by “man” as thorns and thistles, and the like. [based on Proverbs 22,5. The assumption appears to be that such “mishaps” are preventable by man being careful.] We may well ask why Yaakov was afraid of a mishap that might befall Binyamin while he was on the way more than he was afraid of a mishap which might befall him at home? The answer is that mishaps which befall people on a journey are statistically far more frequent than those that befall a person while he is at home. Wild animals, bandits, etc., are usually roaming on much traveled routes. Due to the likelihood of encountering such hazards while traveling, even righteous people who have no reason to fear G’d’s retribution for any wrongs they may have committed, need to be especially careful in any situation which is known to be especially hazardous, and they must not ignore such dangers by relying on G’d to keep them safe. Even if they would be saved from some danger through a miracle G’d would perform for them, their accumulated merits would be diminished thereby. Our sages have found an allusion to all this in Deuteronomy 6,15 לא תנסו את ה' אלוקיכם, “do not cause the Lord your G’d to have to perform a miracle for you.” We find proof that even an outstanding man such as the prophet Samuel when sent to anoint a successor to King Sha-ul and setting out on the way to Chevron to anoint one of Yishai’s sons, was afraid and said so to G’d. G’d Himself told him what precautions to take. (Samuel I 16,2) In view of the above it is not surprising therefore that Yaakov was especially concerned about Binyamin’s safety during the journey.

Samuel was a nazirite, according to the words of Rabbi Nehorai, as it says, “And no razor [morah] shall come upon his head” (I Samuel 1:11). It says with reference to Samson, “And [no] razor [morah]” (Judges 13:5) and it says with reference to Samuel, “And [no] razor [morah]”, just as “razor [morah]” in the case of Samson [teaches that he was] a nazirite, so “razor [morah]” in the case of Samuel [teaches that he was] a nazirite. Rabbi Yose says: but does not “morah” refer to [fear] of flesh and blood? Rabbi Nehorai said to him: But does it not also say, “And Samuel said; ‘How can I go? If Saul will hear it he will kill me’” (I Samuel 16:2) [which shows] that he was afraid of flesh and blood? The case of Samuel is truly puzzling: was he or wasn’t he a nazirite? When Hana prays to God to give her a child, she promises that if she does have a male child, no “morah (razor) shall ever touch his head.” The obvious meaning seems to be that just as Samson’s mother was promised that he would have a child and that her boy was to become a nazirite and “no razor shall touch his head”, so too Samuel’s mother was promising that he would be a nazirite. This is the gist of Rabbi Nehorai’s argument. However, unlike Samson’s mother, Samuel’s mother does not promise the other two nazirite prohibitions, that her son will not become defiled through contact with the dead or eat/drink anything from the vine. Samuel is not subsequently referred to as a nazirite, nor does he seem to act as one. Therefore, Rabbi Yose interprets the Hebrew word “morah” to refer to fear. Samuel’s mother promises that he will not be afraid of anyone. While the word “morah” can mean fear, the simple meaning of the word in this verse seems to obviously be razor. Rabbi Yose interprets it to mean “fear” because it just doesn’t seem that Samuel is a nazirite. Rabbi Nehorai responds by pointing out that this interpretation also does not fit with the facts of Samuel’s life. Samuel did fear Saul, as is evident from the quote. Therefore, the word “morah” must refer to razor, and Samuel must have actually been a nazirite. Interestingly, in a fragmentary scroll of Samuel found in Qumran (the Dead Sea Scrolls), I Samuel 1:22, instead of reading, “[For when he has appeared before the Lord], he must remain there for good”, reads “he will be a nazirite for good, for all his life.” Ben Sira, a second century BCE book, writes that Samuel was a prophetic nazirite (46:3). The Septuagint, the third century BCE translation of the Bible into Greek adds to verse 11 “and he shall not drink wine or strong drink”. Josephus too states that Samuel didn’t drink wine. All of this proves that there was a strong trend in Second Temple Judaism to view Samuel as a nazirite. This view was shared by Rabbi Nehorai in our mishnah. Congratulations! We have finished Nazir. It is a tradition at this point to thank God for helping us to finish learning the tractate and to commit ourselves to going back and relearning it, so that we may not forget it and so that its lessons will stay with us for all of our lives. This last mishnah is an important close to tractate Nazir. We see here that in ancient times when women were grateful to God for having brought them a child, they dedicated their child to God by making the child a nazirite. As an aside, perhaps this is part of why we have seen such a strong connection to women in this tractate. In any case, today people can no longer become nazirites. However, becoming pregnant and having children is still, despite modern technology, very difficult. Although, as a token of gratitude to God we cannot make our children nazirites, we can make a resolution to raise them to a life of Torah and good deeds, to bring them closer to their Jewish roots, to the Jewish people and to the land of Israel. As a father, that is one of the lessons that I learn from this tractate. Congratulations on making it through another tractate. May you have the strength and time to keep on learning more Mishnah! Tomorrow we begin Sota.