Musar su Numeri 6:5

The Kabbalists are agreed that כהן, לוי, ישראל, represent the emanations of חסד, גבורה, תפארת respectively. We have practical examples of this when we look at the Nazirite legislation, where the Torah forbids the Nazirite to cut his hair, i.e. תער לא יבא על ראשו (Numbers 6,5). The reverse is the case when we read about the Levites being consecrated in Numbers 8,7, where the Torah commands the Levites to shave off all the hair on their bodies, i.e. והעבירו תער על כל בשרם. In the case of the נזיר, the Torah stipulates that he must retain the "crown," i.e. nezer, just as a כהן wears a "crown," i.e. מצנפת. Both are forbidden to defile themselves through contact with the dead. Just as the sanctity of the כהן derives from the emanation of חסד, so do the special "powers" of the נזיר derive from that emanation. His hairs allude to the צנורות עליונות, conduits from "higher regions," and divinely inspired characteristics which are derived from the attribute of חסד. This is why he is commanded not to destroy them (the linkage to that attribute). The Levite's spiritual strength, on the other hand, derives from the attribute of גבורה=דין and unbroken contact with this source, which is also the source that inspires negative manifestations here on earth, and must be avoided. That is why he must proceed in manner opposite to that of the Nazirite. This is then why the Torah commands that he shave off all his hair, i.e. all that is reminiscent of conduits connecting him with that source. It is the task of the Levite to frustrate the powers of impurity, to prevent them from gaining ascendancy anywhere. He does so symbolically by destroying his hair, i.e. "by removing the thorns from the vineyard." כהן, לוי, ישראל, can also be viewed as representative of חסד, גבורה, תפארת.

I refer to all that has been written about this in the Talmud and the commentaries of the Tosafot on Taanit 11a and I will add my own comments. The discussion commences with Samuel stating that anyone who observes Fast-Days [that have not been proclaimed] is guilty of a misdemeanor. He agrees with Rabbi Eliezer Hakappor who interpreted our verse above as demonstrating that denying oneself the use of wine is sinful. Samuel argued, that if merely denying oneself wine is sinful, then surely it must be even more sinful to deny oneself food and drink altogether! Rabbi Eleazar countered that on the contrary, anyone imposing fasts upon himself is called "holy." He quotes from our section of the Torah (6,5) קדוש יהיה גדל פרע שער ראשו, "holy shall be he who allows his hair to grow wild on his head." His argument runs as follows: "If a person who merely abstains from wine is called "holy" by the Torah, surely a person who denies himself other pleasures such as food and drink must be considered "holy!" The Talmud asks: "How can Samuel refute the argument of Rabbi Eleazar?" Samuel responds by saying that the Torah calls the person who allows his hair to grow wild "holy". The term "holy," does not, however, apply to someone who vowed not to drink wine. To this Rabbi Eleazar responds that the only one who is called "sinner," i.e. in need of atonement, is the Nazirite who defiled himself during the currency of his vow, seeing that he was not allowed to become impure. The Talmud goes on to ask if Rabbi Eleazar is consistent in his viewpoint, seeing he is on record as saying that a person ought to conduct himself at all times as if something sacred resided within him, and he must not harm such sacred material, since the prophet Hoseah 11,9, states: "Something holy is in your midst, and I will not come into the city!" This surely means that a person must not fast voluntarily! The Talmud answers that this is really not a contradiction within the views expressed by Rabbi Eleazar. In the case where a person knows that the fast does not harm his health, he is allowed to fast. When he has reason to believe that the fast is harmful to him, he must not fast. Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish describes the person who imposes Fast-Days upon himself as "pious" rather than as "holy."