민수기 6:30의 Halakhah

A question that kohanim who serve in the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) might face upon discharge is whether or not they may continue to perform the mitzvah of nesi’at kapayim (raising the hands to bless the people; Bemidbar 6:22-27). The basis of discussion of this issue is the Gemara (Berachot 32b) stating that a kohen who has killed is disqualified from performing nesi’at kapayim. As a source for this principle, the Gemara cites a pasuk from Yeshayahu (1:15), which teaches that because our hands are filled with blood, Hashem ignores us when we extend our hands (interpreted by the Gemara as a reference to nesi’at kapayim). The Rambam (Hilchot Nesi’at Kapayim 15:3) and the Shulchan Aruch (O.C. 128:35) codify this passage as normative Halachah. We will cite the rulings of Rav Moshe Feinstein, Rav Eliezer Waldenberg, and Rav Ovadia Yosef, who focus on the parameters and scope of this prohibition, discussing such issues as whether it applies to one who kills b’oness (under duress), one who kills a nochri, and one who kills in the course of performing a mitzvah.

However, regarding the matter of lashes, there is a difference between [the examples]. As all those [simply] specified in one negative commandment only receive one [set of] lashes - for example, "the wage of a harlot and the price of a dog"(Deuteronomy 23:19); and "leaven and [...] honey" (Leviticus 2:11); "the case of a stranger [or] an orphan" (Deuteronomy 24:17), and all that is similar to them. But the negative commandments that [also] have a general category and are specified at the beginning or end [of the category] - for example, this negative commandment that specified "uncooked and boiled" and is [then] generalized, "Do not eat [...] but only roasted with fire"; and so [too], with a nazerite (Numbers 6:4), "from anything that is obtained from the grapevine [...] may he not eat," and afterwards it specifies, "seeds [...] or skin," ('and grapes wet and dry,' Numbers 6:3) - with these and those similar to them, we give lashes for each and every one. [This is] because the inclusion of the specification that was not needed, indicates lashes for each one [of them], as we have said. And the teacher was prolific in his proofs about this in the ninth shoresh in his Book of the Commandments - that the calculation of commandments is not the same as the calculation of [which commandments require] lashes [independently]. And that which I have said that Ramban, may his memory be blessed, will count each of the ones specified by their names individually - each one by itself - only when they are separate in their content, as we have written; [it] is, for example, [in the case of] 'leaven and honey,' [and] 'the wage and the price.' But in a case where it is the same content - even if they are specified by different names - they are only counted as one commandment. For example, "All male first-borns that are born in your herd and in your flock" (Deuteronomy 15:19) is only one commandment to sanctify all of the first-borns; and the specification is [also] only one commandment. And so [too], "All tithes of the herd or flock" (Leviticus 27:32) is only one commandment to separate to give the tithes of these animals. And so [too], "Judges and officers" (Deuteronomy 16:18) is only that we should establish justice through these people and it is one commandment. And so [too], "An honest balance, honest weights, an honest ephah, and an honest hin" (Leviticus 19:36) is all one commandment, that we should not lie about measures.

However, regarding the matter of lashes, there is a difference between [the examples]. As all those [simply] specified in one negative commandment only receive one [set of] lashes - for example, "the wage of a harlot and the price of a dog"(Deuteronomy 23:19); and "leaven and [...] honey" (Leviticus 2:11); "the case of a stranger [or] an orphan" (Deuteronomy 24:17), and all that is similar to them. But the negative commandments that [also] have a general category and are specified at the beginning or end [of the category] - for example, this negative commandment that specified "uncooked and boiled" and is [then] generalized, "Do not eat [...] but only roasted with fire"; and so [too], with a nazerite (Numbers 6:4), "from anything that is obtained from the grapevine [...] may he not eat," and afterwards it specifies, "seeds [...] or skin," ('and grapes wet and dry,' Numbers 6:3) - with these and those similar to them, we give lashes for each and every one. [This is] because the inclusion of the specification that was not needed, indicates lashes for each one [of them], as we have said. And the teacher was prolific in his proofs about this in the ninth shoresh in his Book of the Commandments - that the calculation of commandments is not the same as the calculation of [which commandments require] lashes [independently]. And that which I have said that Ramban, may his memory be blessed, will count each of the ones specified by their names individually - each one by itself - only when they are separate in their content, as we have written; [it] is, for example, [in the case of] 'leaven and honey,' [and] 'the wage and the price.' But in a case where it is the same content - even if they are specified by different names - they are only counted as one commandment. For example, "All male first-borns that are born in your herd and in your flock" (Deuteronomy 15:19) is only one commandment to sanctify all of the first-borns; and the specification is [also] only one commandment. And so [too], "All tithes of the herd or flock" (Leviticus 27:32) is only one commandment to separate to give the tithes of these animals. And so [too], "Judges and officers" (Deuteronomy 16:18) is only that we should establish justice through these people and it is one commandment. And so [too], "An honest balance, honest weights, an honest ephah, and an honest hin" (Leviticus 19:36) is all one commandment, that we should not lie about measures.

The second type is when one negative commandment comes to forbid several matters that are connected to one another - and that is that He says, "Do not do such and such." And this type is divided into two divisions. For included in it is that about which they said in the Talmud, that he is liable for lashes on each and every one of the connected matters. But [also] included in it is that about which they said that he is only liable once, since it is a general negative commandment. And those negative commandments about which they explained that one is liable for each and every one of them - they are the ones that we count each and every one as a separate commandment; whereas that about which they explained that one is only liable once for all of them is counted as a single commandment. This is according to that which we established in this principle - that under no circumstances is one given two [sets of] lashes for one negative commandment . So when, in the explanation, they made one liable for each and every connected matter - to give lashes for each and every one of them when they were all done at once, to give several [sets of] lashes - we perforce know that they are several categories; and that each one should be counted separately. And I will mention several examples from both divisions until the intended matter becomes totally clear. And that is His, may He be blessed, saying, about the lamb of the Pesach sacrifice, "Do not eat any of it raw or boiled in any way with water" (Exodus 12:9) - a negative commandment, which we count as one commandment. And we don't count, do not eat it raw, as one commandment; and do not eat it boiled, as another commandment. For He did not specify a separate negative commandment for each matter, to say "Do not eat any of it raw; and not boiled in any way" - but rather one negative commandment came to include both matters; and the one matter was appended to the other. And in the second chapter of Pesachim (Pesachim 41b), they said, "Abbaye said, 'If he ate it raw, he is given two [sets of] lashes; raw and boiled, he is given three." And that is because he holds that we give [distinct sets of] lashes for general negative commandments. So when he ate it raw, he transgressed two negative commandments: One of them is, "Do not eat any of it raw"; and the second [set of] lashes is from the general principle - as He is saying, do not eat it when it is not roasted, and he has already eaten it when it is not roasted. And according to his opinion, when he eats it raw and boiled, he gets three [sets of lashes] - one because he ate it raw; the second because he ate it boiled; and the third because he ate it when it was not roasted. And over there, they said about this statement, "But Rava said, 'One does not receive lashes for a general negative commandment.' Some say, at any rate, one [set of] lashes he does receive. And some say he does not receive even one [set of] lashes, as the negative commandment he transgressed is not specific to it, as is the negative commandment against muzzling." That means to say, like that which He, may be exalted, said (Deuteronomy 25:4), "You shall not muzzle an ox while it is threshing" - which is one negative commandment that prohibits one matter. However for this negative commandment, which prohibits two things - raw and boiled - we do not give lashes. And you already know that it was clarified in the Gemara (Sanhedrin 63a), that we do not give lashes for a general negative commandment. And hence the statement of Abbaye is rejected; and the truth is that he is given one [set of] lashes: Whether he ate any of it raw and boiled, [just] raw or [just] boiled, he is only given one [set of] lashes. And so we shall count His, may He be exalted, saying, "Do not eat any of it raw or boiled," as one commandment. And there, it is also stated, "Abbaye said, '[If a nazirite] ate a grape skin, he receives two [sets of lashes]; a grape pit, he receives two; a grape skin and a grape pit, he receives three. But Rava said, 'One does not receive lashes for a general negative commandment'" - meaning to say, "from anything that is obtained from the grapevine" (Numbers 6:4), for which Abbaye thinks we give lashes. And they also said in the fifth chapter of Menachot (Menachot 58b), "One who offers leaven and honey on the altar - Abbaye says, 'He receives lashes on account of leaven; he receives lashes on account of honey; he receives lashes on account of a mixture of leaven; and he receives lashes on account of a mixture of honey'" - meaning to say that His saying (Leviticus 2:11), "any," is including two things: That he not offer it by itself; and that he not offer a mixture of it, whatever the quantity [of what is mixed with it] may be. And this is all according to the principle of his approach - as he holds that we give [distinct sets of] lashes for general negative commandments. And it is stated there, "But Rava said, 'One does not receive lashes for a general negative commandment.' Some say, at any rate, one [set of] lashes he does receive. And some say he does not receive even one set of lashes, as the negative commandment he transgressed is not specific to it, as is the negative commandment against muzzling."

There is a positive biblical commandment for kohanim to bless the nation of Israel, as it is written: “God spoke to Moshe, saying: Speak to Aharon and his sons, saying: This is how you shall bless the Israelites. Say to them: May the Lord bless you and guard you. May the Lord make His face shine on you and be gracious to you. May the Lord turn His face toward you and grant you peace” (Bamidbar 6:22-26).

This is the protocol of Birkat Kohanim: The ḥazan or the gabbai declares “kohanim,” but if only one kohen goes up before the ark, “kohanim” is not declared. This is derived from the verse “Say to them” (Bamidbar 6:23), which is in the plural and indicates that the word “kohanim” is only declared when there are at least two kohanim present (SA 128:10). Birkat Kohanim is not recited by the kohanim on their own. Rather, the ḥazan recites each word and the kohanim repeat after him. At the completion of each verse, the congregation answers “amen.”

Tiferet Yisra'el, Bo'az, Oholot 8:6, declares that although members of this class do not have the status of a "tent" even for purposes of constituting an interposition, nevertheless, they themselves do become defiled. That is indeed the position of a host of early-day authorities.⁷See sources cited by Rabbis Halberstadt and Goldmintz, Kanfei Yonah, p. 8 and idem, Teḥumin, XXII (5762), 507, note 8. However, one early-day authority, Rabbenu Shimshon (Rash), Tohorot 4:3, maintains that members of this class neither constitute a “tent” nor do they themselves become defiled. In effect, Rash maintains that a flying object is not susceptible to defilement as a “tent” or overhanging object. Thus, the passenger in the airplane, who is also in motion, cannot become defiled. That is also the position of Rash, loc. cit.; however, Rosh contradicts that view in his comments on Nazir 55a, s.v. ve-ha-tanya, and in his Tosafot ha-Rosh, Berakhot 19a, s.v. rov. The theory underlying Rash’s position in difficult to fathom. He presumably maintains that defilement extends ad coelum only in the presence of an overhanging tent. Hence, since a flying object does not constitute an overhanging “tent,” even that object cannot become defiled. Cf., R. Chaim ha-Levi Soloveitchik, Ḥiddushei Rabbenu Ḥayyim ha-Levi al ha-Rambam, Hilkhot Tum’at Met 11:5. See Rabbi Halberstadt, Kanfei Yonah, p. 9, note 4. Rabbi Spitzer, Kol ha-Torah, no. 52, p. 179, cites numerous early-day authorities who contradict the view of Rash. Teshuvot Kappei Aharon, no. 25, sec. 14 and no. 50; Ḥazon Ish, Tohorot 4:13 and Yoreh De‘ah 211:9; and R. Yosef Shalom Eliashiv, Yeshurun, X (Nisan 5762), 566f., all rule contrary to the position of Rash. R. David Samuel Pardo, in his commentary on the Tosefta, Ḥasdei David, Tohorot 3:14, also expresses astonishment with regard to Rash’s position.
Citing the comments of Rash and Rosh, Oholot 8:5, regarding a “house on a boat,” Kappei Aharon, no. 50, asserts that, even according to Rash, a “flying” object is immune to defilement only if there is no “roof” over that object; if, however, the flying object is covered by its own roof, even if the roof itself is moving, it does become defiled by the corpse below the flying object. Thus, a kohen in an airplane that overflies a cemetery, asserts Kappei Aharon, becomes defiled because the plane is enclosed on top.
R. Eleazer Moshe ha-Levi Horowitz of Pinsk, Teshuvot Ohel Mosheh, II, no. 122, develops the novel view that even according to Rash, since there is no interposition between himself and the corpse, a kohen who leaps over a corpse transgresses the prohibition against “entering” the tent containing a corpse even though he does not transgress the prohibition against becoming defiled. The prohibition against actual defilement is formulated in Leviticus 21:1; the verse “upon a dead body he shall not come” (Numbers 6:6) is understood by the Gemara as referring to entering into a tent in which a corpse is present and, according to Ohel Mosheh, Nazir 42a, constitutes a transgression even if such entry does not lead to defilement. That thesis is also tentatively advanced by R. Elchanan Wasserman, Koveẓ Shemu‘ot, Ḥullin, sec. 31, and is reflected in the comments of R. Chaim Ozer Grodzinski, Teshuvot Aḥi‘ezer, III, no. 65, secs. 5–7. An airplane flying through the sky is certainly comparable to a ship sailing in the sea and a bird flying in the air. Accordingly, since an airplane is not a "tent" but does itself become defiled, it cannot serve as an interposition preserving persons within the plane from defilement. That fundamental point was noted in the early days of airplane travel by R. Aaron Epstein, Teshuvot Kappei Aharon (Munkàcz, 5693), nos. 25 and 50, and repeatedly confirmed in the intervening decades by a host of authorities.⁸See Ḥazon Ish, Yoreh De‘ah 211:9, Even ha-Ezer 144:9 and Oholot, addenda; Teshuvot Har Ẓevi, Yoreh De‘ah, no. 280; Teshuvot Ḥelkat Ya’akov, III, no. 209; Yerushat Pleitah, no. 34; Teshuvot ve-Hanhagot, III, no. 347; and R. Yosef Shalom Eliashiv, Yeshurun, X (Nisan 5762), 566–567.

When the kohanim perform Birkat Kohanim, the congregation must stand in front of them, as it is written: “This is how you shall bless the Israelites. Say to them” (Bamidbar 6:23). The Sages interpret this to mean that Birkat Kohanim must be performed in the same way that people talk to their friends – by standing face to face and speaking aloud so that all those receiving the blessing can hear them.

Perhaps a person might say: "Since envy, lust and glory and the like, are bad character traits that remove a man from the world, I will completely abstain from them, and keep away from them entirely," to the point that he will not eat meat, nor drink wine, nor marry a woman, nor live in a comfortable dwelling, nor wear decent clothes, but he will put on a sackcloth, or something similar; this too is a bad way of life, and it is forbidden to follow it. Anyone who follows this life-style is called a sinner. For in regard to the nazir it is written,²¹Numbers 6:11. (Nazarite) "To atone for him who sinned by the dead,"²²מֵאֲשֶׁר חָטָא עַל הַנֶפֶשׁ—is translated by the Rabbis as “for committing a sin against his soul,” “against himself,” by denying himself things which are permitted. and [our Rabbis] of blessed memory said, "If a nazir who abstained only from drinking wine, needs an atonement, a person who abstains from everything, how much more so does he need [an atonement]."²³Ta’anis 11a. Therefore, our Rabbis of blessed memory ordained that you should abstain only from those things which the Torah prohibits, but do not prohibit to yourself, things which are permitted by means of vows and oaths. Thus said our Sages of blessed memory, "Is not what the Torah forbids enough for you that you have to prohibit to yourself things which are permissible?"²⁴Yerushalmi, Nedarim 9:1. And our Rabbis of blessed memory have forbidden us to inflict pain on ourselves with more fasting than is required. Concerning all these and similar matters, King Solomon, peace be upon him, said, "Do not be excessively righteous, nor overly wise, why destroy yourself."²⁵Ecclesiastes 7:16. And he said [in the same vein],²⁶Proverbs 4:26. "Measure well the path of your foot then you will stay on a straight course."²⁷Malbim explains the word paleis as a form of peles, the name of a measuring instrument. Man should measure carefully to find the middle road of life, staying clear of the extremes.

That is that He commanded us to shave the nazarite's head and to bring his sacrifices at the culmination of his nazariteship. And the language of the [Sifra] (Sifra, Metzora, Chapter 2:6) is, "Three shave, and their shaving is a commandment: The nazarite; the metsora; and the Levites." However the shaving of the Levites was in the [Sinai] desert, and not for [all] generations, whereas the shaving of the metsora and the nazarite is practiced for [all] generations. And it is explained that there are two shavings for the nazarite, a shaving of impurity and a shaving of purity. And that is His saying, "on the day that his term as nazarite is completed" (Numbers 6:13). And it is inappropriate to count the two shaving as two commandments. For the shaving of impurity is one of the laws of the commandment of nazariteship. For his commandment is to grow his hair untrimmed, in purity - as that verse explained and taught about this. So if his nazariteship becomes impure, he shaves and brings a sacrifice; and then he returns to growing it untrimmed in holiness - as at the beginning - for the number of days that he obligated himself. It is like the metsora that also has two shavings; yet that is one commandment, as I will explain in its place (Sefer HaMitzvot, Positive Commandments 111). And I will also explain the reason for our counting the shaving of the nazarite and the sacrifice, as one commandment; and the shaving of the metsora and his sacrifice, as two commandments. And the regulations of this commandment - meaning the shaving of the nazarite - have also already been explained in their place, in Tractate Nazir. (See Parashat Nasso; Mishneh Torah, Nazariteship 8.)

He prohibited the nazirite from entering into the tent of a corpse. And that is His saying, "by a dead body he shall not come" (Numbers 6:6). And in the explanation, they said in the Gemara (Nazir 42b), "Scripture spoke with a categorical verse - 'He shall not become impure' (Numbers 6:7). [Hence] when it states, 'he shall not come,' it is to prohibit him about the impurity and about the entering." And there, they said that when he enters the tent after he becomes impure, he is only lashed once; and that he is only liable for two [sets] if the impurity and the entering were together - for example, if he entered into a house with a sick person and he sat there until that person died. As it comes out that he became impure and he entered the tent [that has a corpse] at the same time. But if he enters the tent of a corpse, the impurity preceded the entrance - as it is explained there, according to the principles that are demonstrated in Ohalot. (See Parashat Nasso; Mishneh Torah, Nazariteship 1.)

That the nazirite not drink wine or all types of spirits: That the nazirite not drink wine or all types of spirits, the essential [ingredient] of which be wine, which is the juice of grapes. As with the juice of other fruits, even though they are called spirits, they are not prohibited to the nazirite, except when they are in a mixture of that which comes out of the grape. And about this is it stated (Numbers 6:3), "From wine and spirit shall he abstain, etc. and any marination of grapes shall he not drink" - meaning to say that any mixture that has grapes is included in the prohibition. And it broadened this prevention and stated that even if the wine or the spirit that wine mixed into became vinegar, it is prohibited to drink it. And about this, the Scripture stated, "wine vinegar and spirit vinegar shall he not drink." And these are not two [separate] negative commandments, meaning to say one about wine and one about vinegar; as behold, it did not state, "wine vinegar shall he not drink and spirit vinegar shall he not drink." And we have learned from here that one who drinks wine and vinegar is only lashed for one [commandment].

That the nazirite not eat damp grapes: That the nazirite not eat damp (fresh) grapes, as it is stated (Numbers 6:3), "and damp, etc. grapes shall he not eat." And they, may their memory be blessed, said in Tractate Nazir 35b, "'And damp [etc.] grapes, shall he not eat' [is to include] unripe fruit (boser)." The entire content of this commandment is [found] in the commandment before it (Sefer HaChinukh 368).

That the nazirite not eat raisins: That the nazirite not eat raisins, as it is stated (Numbers 6:3), "and damp and dry grapes shall he not eat." [It is] such that you should not say, since they have changed their name - as they are called raisins and not grapes - they have become permissible. Hence the verse elucidated the prohibition with them also. And all of its content is in the previous commandments. And one who ate a kazayit of them is lashed.

That the nazirite not eat the seeds of the grapes: That the nazirite not eat the seed of the grapes, as it is stated (Numbers 6:4), "from the seeds to the skin shall he not eat." All of its content is in the previous commandments. And if he ate a kazayit of them, he is lashed.

That the nazirite not eat the peel of the grapes: That the nazirite not eat the peel of the grapes, as it is stated (Numbers 6:4), "to the zag shall he not eat" - and the understanding of zag is the peel. All of its content is in the previous commandments. And if he ate a kazayit of them, he is lashed. And the warnings in the distancing of wine are multiplied, since there is a great power in everything that comes out of the vine to magnify the [evil] impulse. And this is well-known to the wise men of science.

That the nazirite not shave his hair: That the nazirite not shave his hair, all of the days of his naziriteness, as it is stated (Numbers 6:5) "a razor shall not pass over his head."

The commandment of growing the hair of the nazirite: That the nazirite - who is the person who separated himself from wine - is commanded to let his head hair grow for all the days of his naziriteness for God, as it states (Numbers 6:5), "he shall grow the locks of his head." And the language of Mekhilta (Sifra Zuta on Numbers 6:5) is "'He shall grow the hair' is a positive commandment. From where [do I know there is also a] negative commandment? Hence, it teaches to say 'a blade shall not pass over his head.'"

From the root of the commandment, I have already written an introduction at the beginning of the book that there being something in the world of the Holy One, blessed be He, that combines physicality and intellect - and that is Man - was something fitting and necessary for His praise, blessed be He, to come up properly from His creatures; that with this creature, there would not be lacking any possibilities, which we have in our minds to grasp, from His world, etc., as I wrote there. And there is no doubt that without this reason that obligates our intellect to dwell within the physical, [which is involved with] desire and sin, it would have been fitting for our intellect to stand and serve in front of our Creator and to recognize His honor like one of the 'sons of God' that are stationed with Him. However, because of this obligation, it is subjugated to live in physical houses. And since it is subjugated to this, it must occasionally veer from the service of its Creator to tend to the needs of its home where it lives. For a home's structure and its lumber and its stones cannot stand without a person minding it. If so, as the intention of man's creation was according to what we have said, whenever the intellect can minimize physical work and focus on the service of its Master, that is good for it; so long as it does not completely ignore the work of the house and destroy it. As this would also be considered a sin for him, as the King wished to have a creature like this. It is like the saying of Rabbi Yose, (Taanit 22b) that a person may not afflict himself on a fast day, which Rav Yehudah explained in the name of Rav as stemming from the verse "and man was a living thing" (Genesis 2:7), [which implies that the soul should be allowed to live]. On the [same basis] the wise king stated (Ecclesiastes 7:15), "Do not be overly righteous; do not be overly wise. Why should you be desolate?" And this is the holiness of the nazirite and his loftiness, as he departs from the physical. [About this] Shimon the Righteous said (Nazir 4b), "In all my days [as a priest], I never ate the guilt-offering of an impure nazirite, apart from one man who came to me from the South, who had beautiful eyes and a fine countenance, and his locks were arranged in curls. I said to him, 'My son, what did you see to destroy this [beautiful] hair?' He said to me, 'I was a shepherd for my father in my town, and I went to draw water from the spring, and I looked at my reflection. And my evil inclination quickly rose against me and sought to drive me from the world. I said to my evil inclination, "Wicked one! For what reason are you proud in a world that is not yours, about one who in the future will be maggots and worms. [I swear by] the Temple service that I will shave you for the [sake of] Heaven.' Immediately, I arose and kissed him on his head, and said to him, 'My son, may there be more nazirites like you in Israel. With regard to you the verse states (Numbers 6:2), "When either a man or a woman shall clearly utter a vow, the vow of a nazirite, to consecrate himself to the Lord."'" Therefore, in order to suppress the [evil] inclination, he is commanded to shave his head at the end of the days of his [term]. And he is not permitted to fix it up and to take a little of them, so that his [evil] impulse does not come back against him as [it did] at first. Rather, he has become obligated to shave it all, for there is no doubt that both very long hair and completely shaven heads destroy the appearance of a person.

And do not wrangle [with] me from what they, may their memory be blessed, said (Nazir 19a), "He must bring an atonement offering for himself, for he pained himself by avoiding wine." For this also works with our explanation. Since I have already said that a person does not have the right to destroy his house and to wreck anything of the building that was built by the First Builder, it is fitting for him to bring atonement for his soul. For perhaps he has overstepped the boundary that obligates him with regard to his body and his soul. As perhaps being a nazirite is overly afflicting to his soul according to his nature and constitution. And all 'the ways of God, may He be blessed, are righteous and the just follow them.' And Ramban, may his memory be blessed, wrote in his commentary (Ramban on Numbers 6:11) according to the simple understanding that the reason of the sin-offering that the nazirite bring for atonement [is] that he requires atonement for returning to become impure with the desires of the world. As once this person had had a 'spirit of God' upon him and began to become a nazirite to God, it would have been fit to stay that way for his whole life. And there are seventy faces to the Torah.

That the nazirite not enter the tent of a dead body: That the nazirite not enter the tent of a dead body, as it is stated(Numbers 6:6), "to the soul of a dead person he shall not enter."

That the nazirite not become impure through a dead body or through other impurities: That the nazirite not become impure through a dead body, as it is stated (Numbers 6:7), "For his father or for his mother, etc. he shall not become impure, etc." Even though I have already written the reason for the distancing of impurity from that which is holy in the first commandment of this Order (Sefer HaChinukh 362), I will still say that which comes to my spirit about the reason of the great stringency with the nazirite; as he is commanded not to become impure even for his father and his mother and - there is no need to say - other relatives, and [yet] a regular priest who is also holy, may become impure for [his close relatives]. And the matter is apparently because the holiness of the priest rests upon him automatically. He did not agree to it and it was not from his consent, but rather he was sanctified from birth and from the womb, by force of his tribe which is totally holy. And [so] his behavior towards his relatives is like all other people, since there is no difference between the priestly man and the rest of the people, except that sometimes he will do the service for his God. However, sometimes he will also dwell in his domicile and regale with his friends - he calls to his companions for joy and parties. Hence his heart will be warm towards them and theirs towards him. And because of this, the Torah permitted [him] to become impure for them - 'all the ways of the Torah are pleasant and all of its paths are peace.'

However the man that is a nazirite to God is holy to God all the days of his nazirite vows and - as the verse attests to him (Numbers 6:7) - "as the crown of his God is upon him," he will not become impurified with worldly desires, and he will not be found at parties and the banquets of his companions. As his separation from wine shows about him that he has given his heart to prepare himself and to afflict himself before God, to improve the ways of his soul and to leave the pleasures of the benighted body. And since he has placed all of his heart and all of his thoughts towards his dear soul and he has abandoned all of his own needs and those of his flesh, what would be his desire for the drawing close of his companions and his friends - besides for the commandment, without a doubt. As with the raising of the soul, the pleasures of the body and all of its matters become very light in its eyes. All the more so will it not seek the company of other bodies, whether they be relatives or [others], and it will not find delight in any of their things, besides the holy service to which it is connected and to which its eyes are always directed. And hence from his great holiness and separation from his brothers, the Torah prevents him from becoming impure for them. And [it is] like the matter of the high priest - as since his matters are very elevated and he is separated from the company of his friends, and his pursuits and thoughts are only about the service of his God, may He be blessed, the Torah prevents him from becoming impure for anyone of his relatives. And the stated explanation for his distancing from impurity is also stated about the nazirite; except that with the priest, it mentions oil, since he is anointed with it, but with the nazirite, it does not mention oil. As with the priest, it states (Leviticus 21:22), "as the crown of the anointing oil of his God is upon him." But with the nazirite, it [only] states, "as the crown of his God is upon him." And maybe you will think to respond to me, that when a temporary nazirite finishes his time, he will return to his obliviousness and chase after his desires; and, if so, why should he be more stringent than a regular priest? The answer is that after a person takes on being a nazirite one time, there is hope for him to sanctify himself and to add to his goodness each day. And he will be agreed to from the Heavens and like the matter that they, may their memory be blessed, said (Shabbat 104a), "One who comes to purify himself, is assisted." And since he has taken on being a nazirite even one day, he is assisted and will finish all of his days in purity.

From the laws of the commandment is that which they, may their memory blessed, said (Nazir 49b) that there is a [type of] impurity of a dead body that if the nazirite is made impure by it, he shaves and it interrupts his earlier [tally of] days, and begins to count the days of his naziriteness afterwards [from the beginning]; and there is [another type of] impurity of a dead body for which he does not shave and it does not interrupt his earlier days. [And the latter is such,] even though it is an impurity [that makes impure for] seven [days] (characteristic of impurity generated by a dead body); because it is not said about it, "and if he becomes impure for a soul," but rather (Numbers 6:9), "And if a dead body dies upon him" - which implies [only] when he becomes impure with impurities which are from the essence of the dead body. And these are the impurities for which the nazirite must shave: for a stillborn embryo, even if its limbs have not become attached to its tendons; for a kazayit from a dead body; for a kazayit of the discarded (netsel); for the bones that make up the numerical majority of the bones, even if they do not constiture one quarter of a kav; for half a kav of bones, even if they do not constitute the majority of its structure or their numerical majority, so long as all of the bones are from one dead body and not from two dead bodies; for a backbone coming from a dead body; for the skull of one dead body; for the [detached] limb of a living person that has [enough] flesh to grow back on a living person; for half a log of blood from one dead body; and for a fist-full of rotted remains of a dead body. And what is netsel? It is flesh of a dead body that is dissolved and has become rotten liquid. And the rotten remains (rakav) of a dead person only render impure if he is buried naked in a marble coffin and he is all complete. If one limb was lacking from him or if he was buried with his cloak or in a coffin of boneware or metal, [his remains] are not [considered] rakav. And they only spoke about rakav regarding a dead body alone, which excludes someone killed, as behold, he is missing his blood. If they buried two dead bodies together or they cut his hair or his fingernails and buried them with him, or if a pregnant woman died and she was buried [with] the embryo in her innards and so [too,] if [someone] ground the dead body until it became rakav, their rakav does not render impure until [the body itself] rots on its own. And so [too,] if he became impure from a quarter [of a kav] of bones that come from the backbone or from the skull in their tent, behold it is a doubt whether he is impure.

And so [too,] from the matter of the commandment is that which they said (Nazir 44a), that one who causes a nazirite to become impure - if the nazirite was volitional - [the nazirite] is given lashes, and the one who rendered him impure transgresses on account of "in front of a blind man, etc." (Leviticus 19:14). But if the nazirite is indavertent, [even] if the one who makes him impure is volitional, neither one of them is lashed. And why is the one who makes him impure not lashed? Because it is stated (Numbers 6:9), "and he makes impure the head of his naziriteness" - meaning to say that the liability for lashes is only when he becomes impure with his consent. [These] and the rest of its details are in Tractate Nazir.

The commandment of shaving the nazirite and bringing his sacrifices: That the nazirite shave his hair and bring sacrifices when he completes his naziriteness, and so [too,] if he becomes impure; as it is stated (Numbers 6:13), "and on the day that his term as nazirite is completed, etc." and also (Numbers 6:9), "If a dead body dies upon him, etc." And they said in Sifra, Metzora, Chapter 2:6, "Three shave, and their shaving is a commandment - the nazirite, the leper (metsora), and the Levites." However the three are not equal in all of their [characteristics], as the shaving of the Levites was for its time in the wilderness and not practiced [by future] generations; but the shaving of the leper and the nazirite is a commandment that is practiced [by future] generations. And Rambam, may his memory be blessed, wrote (Sefer Ha Mitzvot LaRambam, Mitzvot Ase 93) that the two shavings of the nazirite - which are the shaving of impurity and the shaving of purification - are only fitting to be counted as one commandment; as the matter of the shaving of impurity is not a separate commandment at all, but rather one law of the laws of naziriteness. [That is] that the Scripture elucidated that if the nazirite becomes impure in the days of his being a nazirite, he must shave and bring a sacrifice and then he goes back to growing his locks in holiness for the days of naziriteness that he forbade to himself, like at the start. [It is] like the leper who also has two shavings and they are one commandment. And since it is not the essence of the commandment, but rather one law of its laws, it is not fitting to count it as a separate commandment - and as the Teacher, may his memory be blessed, elucidated in his Book of the Commandments in the Seventh Root. And in the Order of Zot Tehiyeh (Metsora), I have also written in the name of the Teacher, may his memory be blessed, the reason for our counting the shaving of the nazirite and his sacrifices as one commandment, and the shaving of the leper and his sacrifices as two commandments. And you will see it elucidated there, if you want to study [it].

The commandment of shaving the nazirite and bringing his sacrifices: That the nazirite shave his hair and bring sacrifices when he completes his naziriteness, and so [too,] if he becomes impure; as it is stated (Numbers 6:13), "and on the day that his term as nazirite is completed, etc." and also (Numbers 6:9), "If a dead body dies upon him, etc." And they said in Sifra, Metzora, Chapter 2:6, "Three shave, and their shaving is a commandment - the nazirite, the leper (metsora), and the Levites." However the three are not equal in all of their [characteristics], as the shaving of the Levites was for its time in the wilderness and not practiced [by future] generations; but the shaving of the leper and the nazirite is a commandment that is practiced [by future] generations. And Rambam, may his memory be blessed, wrote (Sefer Ha Mitzvot LaRambam, Mitzvot Ase 93) that the two shavings of the nazirite - which are the shaving of impurity and the shaving of purification - are only fitting to be counted as one commandment; as the matter of the shaving of impurity is not a separate commandment at all, but rather one law of the laws of naziriteness. [That is] that the Scripture elucidated that if the nazirite becomes impure in the days of his being a nazirite, he must shave and bring a sacrifice and then he goes back to growing his locks in holiness for the days of naziriteness that he forbade to himself, like at the start. [It is] like the leper who also has two shavings and they are one commandment. And since it is not the essence of the commandment, but rather one law of its laws, it is not fitting to count it as a separate commandment - and as the Teacher, may his memory be blessed, elucidated in his Book of the Commandments in the Seventh Root. And in the Order of Zot Tehiyeh (Metsora), I have also written in the name of the Teacher, may his memory be blessed, the reason for our counting the shaving of the nazirite and his sacrifices as one commandment, and the shaving of the leper and his sacrifices as two commandments. And you will see it elucidated there, if you want to study [it].

From the laws of the commandment - that which they, may their memory be blessed, said (Mishnah Middot 2:5), "Where does he shave his hair? In the women's courtyard," and the chamber of nazirites was there in the southeast corner, and they would cook their peace-offerings there and throw the hair into the fire, and if he shaved in the [rest of the] country, he would have discharged [his obligation] (Mishneh Torah, Laws of Nazariteship 8:3); [that] in any place that he shaves, he throws it under the cauldron; [that] he does not shave until the opening of the courtyard be open, as it is stated (Numbers 6:18), "at the opening of the Tent of Meeting," and the understanding of the verse is not that he should shave in front of the opening, as there would be a disgrace to the Temple in this; so [too,] that which they, may their memory be blessed, said about this commandment (Nazir 46a), [that] a nazirite who pulled out [his hair] does not need to pass a blade over [his head] even though he does not have hair, and so [too,] if he does not have palms [of the hand], behold, this one brings his sacrifices, and afterwards he can drink and become impure, and even if he has hair, once he has brought his sacrifices, even though he did not shave, the shaving does not impede [it], and he can drink and become impure in the evening, even though he did not give it on his palms and wave it, as all of these things are for [the fulfillment of] the commandment and not for an impediment; [that] even though the shaving does not impede, it is a commandment to shave even after much time; [that] a nazirite who shaved without a blade or shaved with a blade but left [at least] two hairs, did not do anything and did not fulfill the commandment of shaving, whether [in the case of] a pure nazirite, or whether [in the case of] an impure nazirite; that if he shaved upon his peace-offerings and they were found to be disqualified, his shaving is disqualified, [but] if he shaved upon [all] three animals that he is sacrificing, and it comes out that [at least] one of them is fit, his shaving is fit, and he shall bring the rest of his offerings [afterwards] and they are to be sacrificed, as per their law, [and] these three animals are a male lamb for a burnt-offering, a female lamb for a sin-offering and a ram for a peace-offering, and he brings six and two-thirds issaron of fine flour with the ram, and he bakes twenty loaves from it; and the rest of its details - are in Tractate Nazir.

The commandment of the priestly blessing every day: That the priests were commanded that they should bless Israel every day, as it is stated (Numbers 6:23), "Thus shall you bless the Children of Israel; say to them."

From the roots of the commandment, [there is a need to] preface: The matter is known that in all of the commandments of the Torah, God distances us form a thing according to [the degree] of the stumbling found in it. And there is no doubt that the planting of a vineyard is the cause of wine, which [brings] several stumbling blocks to people. From its desire have many casualties fallen , since [wine] stimulates the 'impulse of the heart of man which is evil,' and it pushes off the good impulse. And all of its counsel is, "Eat, drink and lay down to fall asleep." And [it is] like the matter that is written (Habakuk 2:8), "And surely the one that wine betrays," and the one who separates from it is called holy. And nonetheless God, may He be blessed, allowed it to us because of its slight purpose for bodies that its found in its slight [consumption]. And since it is only permitted for a great need, the verse obligated us that if also the start of its planting or its seeding will be in such a way that there is an angle of iniquity and sin in it, that we not keep it and that we should not benefit from it at all, but [rather] that it should all be burnt and destroyed from the world. Are all of the stumbling blocks that come out from at it after the end of its ripening not enough for us? [Hence,] it is not good for also its beginning to be in sin, but [rather] all of it should be incinerated - the fruit and the chaff and the wood and everything that is in it.

If one urinates and handles it (his penis) with his hands or he goes to the bathroom and he wipes himself, he is permitted to wash since his hands are dirty. (Hagah: and he washes up to the ends of the joints of his fingers.) And if he wants to pray, even if he did not wipe himself, he is also permitted to wash (his fingers in water) up to the ends of the joints of his fingers.
Hagah: And so it is with a priest who goes up to recite the priestly benediction,¹⁰⁰The priestly benediction, Birkhat Khohanim, ברכת כהנים, was also known as the Nesi'at Kapayim, נשיאת כפים, or the lifting of the hands. It was part of the daily service in the Temple every morning and evening before the thanks-offering the priests would raise their hands up and pronounce the three-fold priestly blessing from a special platform called a dukhan, דוכן. Therefore the ceremony has also been referred to as the dukhenen. The ceremony was transferred into the daily service in the synagogue. In Ashkenazi communities it is restricted to the Musaf, Additional Service (see footnote 166) of festivals but is omitted on Simḥat Torah because the Kohanim might be drunk and when the festival falls on the Sabbath. It is said during the Amidah (see footnote 43) of the Musaf Service during the fifth (of seven) benediction which calls for the restoration of the Temple Sacrifice Service where the priests served in performing the sacrifices for the people to God.
The Hebrew text of the blessing Numbers 6:24, consists of three short verses of three, five, and seven words respectively. It mounts in gradual stages from the petition for material blessing and protection, to that of a divine favor as a spiritual blessing, and it climaxes in a petition for God's most consummate gift of peace, which encompasses the welfare of all material and spiritual wellbeing. These fifteen words have a rhythmic beauty to them. They are introduced by a reminder of the Temple Sacrifice Service and a prayer for its reestablishment. The blessing was only spoken by Aaron but it was a blessing of God.
The words that the descendents of the priests chanted in front of the congregation from the ark covered by their prayer shawls with their fingers separated in the middle are as follows:

The Lord bless thee and keep thee:
The Lord make his face to shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee:
The Lord turn his face unto thee, and give thee peace.
And the congregation responds "Amen" to each blessing.
Hertz, op. cit., pp. 834-37. he washes his hands even though they are clean because the majority of (the instances of) washing which are not intended for pleasure are permitted, (הגהות מיימוני פ״ב מהל׳ י״כ ומהרי״ל).¹⁰¹Hagahot Maimuniyyot, chapter two from the Laws of Yom Kippur and Maharil, הגהות מיימוני פ״ב מהל׳ י״כ ומהרי״ל.
For Hagahot Maimuniyyot, הגהות מיימוני; see footnote 27.
For Maharil, מהרי״ל; see footnote 8. Therefore even if one comes from the street and his feet are dirty, it is permissible to wash them, (ב״י בשם הגהות מיימוני וסמ״ג וטור הלכות ט״ב).¹⁰²Beit Yosef in the name of Hagahot Maimuniyyot and Sefer Mitzvot Gadol and Tur on the Laws of Tishah be-Av, ב"י בשם הגהות מיימוני דסס"ג וטור הלכות ט"ב.
For the Beit Yosef, ב״י; see footnote 20.
For Hagahot Maimuniyyot, הגהות מיימוני; see footnote 27.
Sefer Mitzvot Gadol, סמ״ג, is also known by its acronym SeMaG for Sefer Mitzvot Gadol. It was written by Moses ben Jacob of Coucy, a thirteenth century French scholar and tosafist. Moses of Coucy was the first French Jew to serve as an itinerant preacher, who wandered from town to town and from country to country trying to inspire Jews to renew their faith in God. He began his work in Spain in 1236 apparently after he received some mystical revelation. He excited people to renew their following of the commandments of tefillin (prayer phylacteries), mezuzah (Shema prayers placed on the doorpost), and ẓiẓit (garment fringes) which they had been lax in observing. He also spoke against a practice that had become common among Jews of Spain, having sexual relations with Gentile women. He stressed the value of the study of Torah and all positive commandments which had declined in Spain along with the allegorization of the Bible as a result of the philisophic writings of Maimonides which had become popular in the thirteenth century. Because of his vast sermonizing he received the name of Moses ha-Darshan, Moses the Sermonizer.
The SeMaG, Sefer Mitzvot Gadol, is Moses of Coucy's most extensive and important work, and it was first published before 1480 probably in Rome and again in Italy in 1547. The work is unique among the rabbinic writings of the period because of its style and arrangement. It contains the essence of the Oral Law, and it is arranged in order of the precepts divided into two parts, the positive and the negative precepts. Coucy based his work on the Mishneh Torah of Maimonides (see footnote 59) and he quoted from it directly on almost every page. He basically added to the words of Maimonides using as his source the Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmuds as well as many midrashim, halakhic and aggadic commentaries on the Bible. He also employed the works of French and German rishonim, early scholars (see footnote 16). Coucy changed the language of the midrashim to fit in with the style of Maimonides. The order to the SeMaG is different than that of the Mishneh Torah and even different than Maimonides' Sefer ha-Mitzvot (see footnote 59) which also lists the 613 commandments in positive and negative precepts because Coucy was not familiar with this work by Maimonides. At the end of his book Coucy included rabbinic precepts so as to instruct the people in the way of the Lord, which had been his original aim. To reach this aim, Coucy also separated those precepts which had practical value from those which were no longer applicable. The work of Moses of Coucy, because of his travels in Spain and his discovery of the works of Maimonides, helped bring Maimonides to the awareness of the French Jewish community. It is ironic that the allegorization of the Bible that Moses of Coucy fought so hard against was the result of the philosophy of Maimonides whom, as a halakhist, Moses of Coucy respected so much.
Moses of Coucy employed the following style in Sefer Mitzvot Gadol: he began with a scriptural verse touching on the subject, he then sighted interpretations of the verse found in the Talmuds and the halakhic midrashim. He then gave explanations based on commentators and halakhic scholars, and finally he summarized the halakhah. He weaved into the discussions aggadic and homiletic aspects, many of which were his own creation that displayed a love of God and his fellow man. The SeMaG became quite a popular and well known work among Jewish scholars for many generations. Isaac of Corbeil who had the title of "Head of the Yeshivot of France" compiled a book that was completely dependent on the SeMaG and he called it Sefer Mitzvot Katan, SeMaK, (see footnote 27), and he made it compulsory daily learning for every Jew. The SeMaG was the most accepted halakhic code among Ashkenazi and Sephardi Jewry until its position was taken over by the Shulḥan Arukh. (For an explanation of the SeMaG and how it fits into the entire picture of codification literature, see the introduction to this thesis).
Israel Moses Ta-Shma, E. J., v. 12, pp. 418-20.
The Tur, on the laws concerning the Ninth Day of the month of Av, טור הלכות ט״ב.
Tishah Be-Av is a fast day which commemorates the destruction of both the first Temple (586 B. C. E.) by the Babylonians and the second Temple (70 C. E.) by the Romans in Jerusalem which traditionally occurred on this date, (M. Ta'anit 4:6). (Actually records show that the major destruction of both Temples was on the tenth of Av but the Talmud proclaimed the Ninth Day of Av as the official day of mourning). It is a national day of mourning for the Jewish people. The rules regarding washing one's feet only if they are dirty (for cleansing purposes) are the same on Tisha Be-Av as they are on Yom Kippur.
The Mishna, loc. cit., also points out other calamities that befell the Jewish people on the Ninth Day of Av. It was on that day that the children of Israel were told they could not enter the Promised Land following their exodus from Egypt. On the Ninth of Av Bethar, the last stronghold of the leaders of the Bar Kokhba revolt was captured in 135 C.E. and exactly one year later the Roman Emperor, Hadrian, established a heathen temple on the site of the Temple in Jerusalem and made the city a pagan city which the Jews were not permitted to enter. The Jews later were expelled from Spain in 1492 on Tishah be-Av. This day then became a symbol for the persecutions and misfortunes of the Jews throughout history.
Fasting on the Ninth Day of Av as a day of mourning might have even been in practice during the second Temple period, and it was certainly part of the Jewish life in mishnaic times. It is a fast like Yom Kippur, from sunset to sunset.
In some places it is customary to eat a boiled egg during the last meal before Tishah be-Av sprinkled with ashes to symbolize mourning. No meat or wine is to be included prior to the fast. It is a day of national fasting and mourning. The laws of fasting are very similar to those of Yom Kippur and the laws of mourning parallel those that apply to one who has just lost a close relative after the burial. Lamentations are read as part of the Evening Service. While studying is prohibited, the Book of Job, curses in Leviticus (26:14-42) Jeremiah 39, and stories in the Talmud on the destruction of Jerusalem (Git. 55b-58a) may be read.
Supposedly Tishah be-Av will eventually again become a day of joy as the Messiah is to be born on this day.
Meir Ydit, E. J., v. 3, pp. 936-40.
For thr Tur, טור; see footnote 23.