בָּעֵ֣ת הַהִ֗וא הִבְדִּ֤יל יְהוָה֙ אֶת־שֵׁ֣בֶט הַלֵּוִ֔י לָשֵׂ֖את אֶת־אֲר֣וֹן בְּרִית־יְהוָ֑ה לַעֲמֹד֩ לִפְנֵ֨י יְהוָ֤ה לְשָֽׁרְתוֹ֙ וּלְבָרֵ֣ךְ בִּשְׁמ֔וֹ עַ֖ד הַיּ֥וֹם הַזֶּֽה׃
Wówczas to oddzielił Wiekuisty pokolenie Lewi, aby nosiło arkę przymierza Wiekuistego, aby stawało przed obliczem Wiekuistego, do usługi Jemu, i aby błogosławiło w imieniu Jego aż po dziś dzień.
Ramban
WHEN THOU LIGHTEST THE LAMPS. “Why does the section dealing with the candelabrum follow [the section which tells of] the dedication-offerings of the princes? The reason is that when Aaron saw the dedication-offerings of the princes, he became disheartened because neither he nor his tribe participated with them in the dedication; whereupon the Holy One, blessed be He, said to him: ‘By thy life! Thy contribution is [of] greater [significance] than theirs, for thou wilt kindle and trim the lamps every morning and evening.’”1“Every morning and evening.” This is not found in our texts of Rashi. This is Rashi’s language, from a Midrash Agadah.2Tanchuma Beha’alothcha 5. — “Midrash Agadah.” Rabbinic texts on the Five Books of Moses are divided into two classes: “Midrash Halachah” (texts dealing mainly with the legal parts of the Torah), which consist of the Mechilta on the Book of Exodus, Sifra [or Torath Kohanim] on the Book of Leviticus, and Sifre on the Books of Numbers and Deuteronomy. Another set of texts deal mainly with the narrative, ethical and homiletical aspects of the Scriptures. These comprise two major works — the Midrash Rabbah and Tanchuma. There is in addition a large group of smaller Midrashim that belong to this category. The generic term “Midrash Agadah” includes all this second group of texts.
But it is not clear to me why G-d consoled Aaron [by reminding him of his function] in lighting the lamps, rather than consoling him with the burning of the incense every morning and evening, which is [the specific function of his] with which Scripture praised him, as it is said, they shall put incense before Thee.3Deuteronomy 33:10. This was recited by Moses in praise of the whole tribe of Levi consisting of priests and Levites, and he singled out this function of the priests for special praise, thus indicating that the burning of incense was a highly significant act. So why did G-d not console Aaron with this special prerogative of his? Or [G-d could have reminded him of] all the offerings [performed only by his descendants], and the meal-offering of baked cakes [which is brought daily by the High Priest personally],4Leviticus 6:13-15. and the Service on the Day of Atonement which is only valid if done by him [i.e., Aaron and subsequent High Priests], and [by the fact that it is] he who enters into the innermost part of the Sanctuary, and he is the holy one of the Eternal,5Psalms 106:16. standing in His Temple to minister unto Him, and to bless in His Name,6Deuteronomy 10:8. and his entire tribe minister to our G-d! Moreover, what reason was there for Aaron’s uneasiness of mind [upon seeing the offerings of the princes]? Was not his [dedication-] offering greater than that of the [other] princes, for he offered up during those days — all the [seven] days of the initiation [of the priests] — many offerings? And if you reply that [he was disheartened because] his offerings were obligatory and he had been commanded to bring them, and therefore he was dispirited because he did not bring a voluntary offering for the dedication of the altar as they did — [this cannot be so] because the lighting of the lamps with which He consoled Aaron was also a duty which he had been commanded! [Therefore what consolation did Aaron derive for not sharing in the voluntary offerings by being given a commandment which was obligatory?]
But the intention of this homiletic text is to derive an allusion from this section [of the Torah] to the Chanukah (“Dedication”) of lights which occurred in the period of the Second Temple through Aaron and his sons, namely [Matithyahu] the Hasmonean, who was High Priest, and his sons.7See Vol. I, pp. 589-590. And I have found this explanation in the following text of Megillath Setharim8Literally: “Scroll of Hidden Things.” This was a kind of anthology of various subjects — law, tradition, Biblical exegesis, philosophy, as well as explanations of customs. It is possible that they were primarily notes which the author wrote down for his own benefit, not intending them for public use, hence its name — “Scroll of Hidden Things.” The book was popular in the era of the Rishonim [“the Early Scholars” of the eleventh and twelfth centuries]. It has been lost in the course of time. of Rabbeinu Nissim,9Rabbeinu Nissim lived in the first half of the eleventh century of the Common Era. He was the son of Rabbi Yaakov of Kairwan in North Africa, to whom Rabbeinu Sherira Gaon (see Vol. I, p. 97) addressed his famous letter, in which he gives a historical account of how the Mishnah was written and how the traditions were passed on through the later generations. After the death of his father, Rabbeinu Nissim together with Rabbeinu Chananel (see Vol. II p. 106, Note 45, and Vol. III, p. 324, Note 286) were the recognized authorities of the Kairwan community. Rabbeinu Nissim wrote a commentary on many tractates of the Talmud which is existing and is outstanding for its clarity of exposition. who mentions this tradition, saying: “I have seen in the Midrash: When [the princes of] the twelve tribes brought the dedication-offerings and the tribe of Levi did not etc., the Holy One, blessed be He, said to Moses, Speak unto Aaron, and say unto him: When thou lightest the lamps. There is another Dedication in which there will be lighting of the lamps, when I will perform through your sons miracles and salvation for Israel, and a Dedication which will be called by their name, namely, ‘the Chanukah of the sons of the Hasmonean.’10The sense of the verse here is thus: “It is you [Aaron and sons, through your descendants the Hasmoneans] who will kindle and trim the lamps in the days of the Second Temple.” Therefore He put this section [dealing with the lighting of the lamps] next to the section concerning the dedication of the altar.” Thus far is his [Rabbeinu Nissim’s] language.
And I have further seen in Yelamdeinu11Tanchuma Beha’alothcha, 5. On the meaning of the term Yelamdeinu, see Vol. II, p. 131, Note 196. and also in the Midrash Rabbah12Bamidbar Rabbah 15:5. [the following text]: “The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Moses: Go and tell Aaron — ‘Fear not! You are designated for something of greater importance than this. The offerings are brought only as long as the Sancutary is in existence, but the lamps will give light in front of the candelabrum forever; and all the blessings that I have given you with which to bless My children will never come to an end.’” Now it is an obvious fact that when the Sanctuary is not in existence and the offerings are not brought because of its destruction, the lighting of the lamps [of the candelabrum in the Sanctuary] also ceases [so what does the Midrash mean in saying that G-d promised Aaron that the lighting of the lamps would never stop]! Therefore [we must say] that the Sages of the Midrash were alluding to the lights of the Dedication of the Hasmoneans, which applies [on the festival of Chanukah] even after the destruction of the Sanctuary, in our exile. Similarly the priestly blessing13Above, 6:24-26. which is also juxtaposed to the dedication-offerings of the princes applies forever. Thus the Rabbis interpreted the proximity to the chapter of the dedication-offerings of the princes of both [the section] before and after it, in honor of Aaron who was not included with the princes [in those dedication-offerings].
Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra explains that this section was placed next to [the verse above, stating, And when Moses went into the Tent of Meeting that He might speak with him …],14Ibid., 7:89. in order “to inform us that the Divine communication [to Moses] would come at night as well, for there [in the Tent of Meeting] the lamp would be burning and would not become extinguished.” But this is not so according to the opinion of our Rabbis, who say:15Mechilta Pis’cha 2. “Did He not speak to him [Moses] only in the daytime?” And if Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra would have understood the difference between the prophecy [experienced by] Moses and that of the other prophets,16Ramban clearly refers to the explanation of Rambam in his introduction to the tenth chapter of Tractate Sanhedrin, where he elucidates the ways in which the prophecy of Moses our teacher differed from that of all other prophets: “…Secondly, in the case of all other prophets, prophecy only comes to them either in the course of natural sleep … or when overtaken during the day by such a deep sleep as to be deprived of all consciousness, their minds being completely suspended … In the case of Moses, however, the word of G-d came to him during the day, and whilst he was standing between the two cherubim [of the ark of the covenant]” (see my translation of this introduction, in “The Commandments,” Vol. I, pp. 275-276). he would not have thought so [i.e., that the Divine communication also came to Moses at night]; as Scripture states, If there be a prophet among you, I the Eternal do make Myself known unto him in a vision, I do speak with him in a dream. My servant Moses is not so,17Further, 12:6-7. for his prophecy was not through a dream, since dreams take place when it is actually night. But the order of arrangement of these sections [of the Torah] is as I have explained,18In the introduction to this book, and above in Seder Naso 7:1. for Scripture’s purpose in this book is to complete the laws of the offerings and all that must be done in the Tent of Meeting. Now He had said originally, And thou shalt command the children of Israel, that they bring unto thee pure olive oil beaten for the light, to cause a lamp to burn continually,19Exodus 27:20. but He did not mention the candelabrum there, and therefore [one might have thought] that it indicates that they [only] have to kindle [the lamps] in the candelabrum when it is available, just as He said in [the section concerning] the making thereof, and he shall light the lamps thereof, to give light over against it.20Ibid., 25:37. But if it were perchance lost or broken [we might have thought that] they should light the lamps without the candelabrum, and that the candelabrum is not essential for the lighting, since the commandment is to cause a lamp to burn continually19Exodus 27:20. for all time. Therefore21The word “Therefore” is added in the Tur. He commanded again afterwards, [so that it would be applicable] at once and for all generations, Command the children of Israel, that they bring unto thee pure olive oil,22Leviticus 24:2. stating, He [Aaron] shall set in order the lamps upon the pure candelabrum,23Ibid., Verse 4. meaning that he may only set the lamps in order upon the pure candelabrum. And since He completed here the account of the erection of the Tabernacle, He also finished all the laws of the lamps, and commanded that the seven lamps should always be burning for all generations in front of the candelabrum,24In Verse 2 before us. just as He had mentioned at the making of the candelabrum, and he shall light the lamps thereof, to give light over against it20Ibid., 25:37. — but not without the candelabrum, and not unless all the lamps give light over against it. He did not mention the Tent of Meeting in this section, in order to instruct [us] that this [law] applies also in the Sanctuary [at Jerusalem], for one might have thought that because there were no windows in the Tent of Meeting it was necessary to have this light, whereas in the Sanctuary [at Jerusalem] where there were windows broad within, and narrow without25I Kings 6:4. The windows were made in that way in order to indicate that it is not light from the outside world that comes into the Sanctuary but on the contrary — it is from the Sanctuary that the light goes forth to the world (Menachoth 86b, Rashi). [such a light] would not be necessary, therefore He did not mention here the Tent of Meeting.
But it is not clear to me why G-d consoled Aaron [by reminding him of his function] in lighting the lamps, rather than consoling him with the burning of the incense every morning and evening, which is [the specific function of his] with which Scripture praised him, as it is said, they shall put incense before Thee.3Deuteronomy 33:10. This was recited by Moses in praise of the whole tribe of Levi consisting of priests and Levites, and he singled out this function of the priests for special praise, thus indicating that the burning of incense was a highly significant act. So why did G-d not console Aaron with this special prerogative of his? Or [G-d could have reminded him of] all the offerings [performed only by his descendants], and the meal-offering of baked cakes [which is brought daily by the High Priest personally],4Leviticus 6:13-15. and the Service on the Day of Atonement which is only valid if done by him [i.e., Aaron and subsequent High Priests], and [by the fact that it is] he who enters into the innermost part of the Sanctuary, and he is the holy one of the Eternal,5Psalms 106:16. standing in His Temple to minister unto Him, and to bless in His Name,6Deuteronomy 10:8. and his entire tribe minister to our G-d! Moreover, what reason was there for Aaron’s uneasiness of mind [upon seeing the offerings of the princes]? Was not his [dedication-] offering greater than that of the [other] princes, for he offered up during those days — all the [seven] days of the initiation [of the priests] — many offerings? And if you reply that [he was disheartened because] his offerings were obligatory and he had been commanded to bring them, and therefore he was dispirited because he did not bring a voluntary offering for the dedication of the altar as they did — [this cannot be so] because the lighting of the lamps with which He consoled Aaron was also a duty which he had been commanded! [Therefore what consolation did Aaron derive for not sharing in the voluntary offerings by being given a commandment which was obligatory?]
But the intention of this homiletic text is to derive an allusion from this section [of the Torah] to the Chanukah (“Dedication”) of lights which occurred in the period of the Second Temple through Aaron and his sons, namely [Matithyahu] the Hasmonean, who was High Priest, and his sons.7See Vol. I, pp. 589-590. And I have found this explanation in the following text of Megillath Setharim8Literally: “Scroll of Hidden Things.” This was a kind of anthology of various subjects — law, tradition, Biblical exegesis, philosophy, as well as explanations of customs. It is possible that they were primarily notes which the author wrote down for his own benefit, not intending them for public use, hence its name — “Scroll of Hidden Things.” The book was popular in the era of the Rishonim [“the Early Scholars” of the eleventh and twelfth centuries]. It has been lost in the course of time. of Rabbeinu Nissim,9Rabbeinu Nissim lived in the first half of the eleventh century of the Common Era. He was the son of Rabbi Yaakov of Kairwan in North Africa, to whom Rabbeinu Sherira Gaon (see Vol. I, p. 97) addressed his famous letter, in which he gives a historical account of how the Mishnah was written and how the traditions were passed on through the later generations. After the death of his father, Rabbeinu Nissim together with Rabbeinu Chananel (see Vol. II p. 106, Note 45, and Vol. III, p. 324, Note 286) were the recognized authorities of the Kairwan community. Rabbeinu Nissim wrote a commentary on many tractates of the Talmud which is existing and is outstanding for its clarity of exposition. who mentions this tradition, saying: “I have seen in the Midrash: When [the princes of] the twelve tribes brought the dedication-offerings and the tribe of Levi did not etc., the Holy One, blessed be He, said to Moses, Speak unto Aaron, and say unto him: When thou lightest the lamps. There is another Dedication in which there will be lighting of the lamps, when I will perform through your sons miracles and salvation for Israel, and a Dedication which will be called by their name, namely, ‘the Chanukah of the sons of the Hasmonean.’10The sense of the verse here is thus: “It is you [Aaron and sons, through your descendants the Hasmoneans] who will kindle and trim the lamps in the days of the Second Temple.” Therefore He put this section [dealing with the lighting of the lamps] next to the section concerning the dedication of the altar.” Thus far is his [Rabbeinu Nissim’s] language.
And I have further seen in Yelamdeinu11Tanchuma Beha’alothcha, 5. On the meaning of the term Yelamdeinu, see Vol. II, p. 131, Note 196. and also in the Midrash Rabbah12Bamidbar Rabbah 15:5. [the following text]: “The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Moses: Go and tell Aaron — ‘Fear not! You are designated for something of greater importance than this. The offerings are brought only as long as the Sancutary is in existence, but the lamps will give light in front of the candelabrum forever; and all the blessings that I have given you with which to bless My children will never come to an end.’” Now it is an obvious fact that when the Sanctuary is not in existence and the offerings are not brought because of its destruction, the lighting of the lamps [of the candelabrum in the Sanctuary] also ceases [so what does the Midrash mean in saying that G-d promised Aaron that the lighting of the lamps would never stop]! Therefore [we must say] that the Sages of the Midrash were alluding to the lights of the Dedication of the Hasmoneans, which applies [on the festival of Chanukah] even after the destruction of the Sanctuary, in our exile. Similarly the priestly blessing13Above, 6:24-26. which is also juxtaposed to the dedication-offerings of the princes applies forever. Thus the Rabbis interpreted the proximity to the chapter of the dedication-offerings of the princes of both [the section] before and after it, in honor of Aaron who was not included with the princes [in those dedication-offerings].
Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra explains that this section was placed next to [the verse above, stating, And when Moses went into the Tent of Meeting that He might speak with him …],14Ibid., 7:89. in order “to inform us that the Divine communication [to Moses] would come at night as well, for there [in the Tent of Meeting] the lamp would be burning and would not become extinguished.” But this is not so according to the opinion of our Rabbis, who say:15Mechilta Pis’cha 2. “Did He not speak to him [Moses] only in the daytime?” And if Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra would have understood the difference between the prophecy [experienced by] Moses and that of the other prophets,16Ramban clearly refers to the explanation of Rambam in his introduction to the tenth chapter of Tractate Sanhedrin, where he elucidates the ways in which the prophecy of Moses our teacher differed from that of all other prophets: “…Secondly, in the case of all other prophets, prophecy only comes to them either in the course of natural sleep … or when overtaken during the day by such a deep sleep as to be deprived of all consciousness, their minds being completely suspended … In the case of Moses, however, the word of G-d came to him during the day, and whilst he was standing between the two cherubim [of the ark of the covenant]” (see my translation of this introduction, in “The Commandments,” Vol. I, pp. 275-276). he would not have thought so [i.e., that the Divine communication also came to Moses at night]; as Scripture states, If there be a prophet among you, I the Eternal do make Myself known unto him in a vision, I do speak with him in a dream. My servant Moses is not so,17Further, 12:6-7. for his prophecy was not through a dream, since dreams take place when it is actually night. But the order of arrangement of these sections [of the Torah] is as I have explained,18In the introduction to this book, and above in Seder Naso 7:1. for Scripture’s purpose in this book is to complete the laws of the offerings and all that must be done in the Tent of Meeting. Now He had said originally, And thou shalt command the children of Israel, that they bring unto thee pure olive oil beaten for the light, to cause a lamp to burn continually,19Exodus 27:20. but He did not mention the candelabrum there, and therefore [one might have thought] that it indicates that they [only] have to kindle [the lamps] in the candelabrum when it is available, just as He said in [the section concerning] the making thereof, and he shall light the lamps thereof, to give light over against it.20Ibid., 25:37. But if it were perchance lost or broken [we might have thought that] they should light the lamps without the candelabrum, and that the candelabrum is not essential for the lighting, since the commandment is to cause a lamp to burn continually19Exodus 27:20. for all time. Therefore21The word “Therefore” is added in the Tur. He commanded again afterwards, [so that it would be applicable] at once and for all generations, Command the children of Israel, that they bring unto thee pure olive oil,22Leviticus 24:2. stating, He [Aaron] shall set in order the lamps upon the pure candelabrum,23Ibid., Verse 4. meaning that he may only set the lamps in order upon the pure candelabrum. And since He completed here the account of the erection of the Tabernacle, He also finished all the laws of the lamps, and commanded that the seven lamps should always be burning for all generations in front of the candelabrum,24In Verse 2 before us. just as He had mentioned at the making of the candelabrum, and he shall light the lamps thereof, to give light over against it20Ibid., 25:37. — but not without the candelabrum, and not unless all the lamps give light over against it. He did not mention the Tent of Meeting in this section, in order to instruct [us] that this [law] applies also in the Sanctuary [at Jerusalem], for one might have thought that because there were no windows in the Tent of Meeting it was necessary to have this light, whereas in the Sanctuary [at Jerusalem] where there were windows broad within, and narrow without25I Kings 6:4. The windows were made in that way in order to indicate that it is not light from the outside world that comes into the Sanctuary but on the contrary — it is from the Sanctuary that the light goes forth to the world (Menachoth 86b, Rashi). [such a light] would not be necessary, therefore He did not mention here the Tent of Meeting.
Radak
But know that the Lord hath set apart (הפלה): – He hath set aside and separated. So also, “the Lord shall set apart (והפ֫לה) between the cattle of Israel” (Exod. 9:4). And its interpretation: He has separated me from all Israel to be king; on the analogy of “The Lord separated the tribe of Levi” (Deut. 10:8). And why? Because He knows me to be
Ramban
WHEN A MAN OR WOMAN SHALL DO ANY OF THE SINS OF MAN. [The sense of the verse] is as follows: “If a man does any of the sins by which one can transgress, of any sin which man commits against another man, and he deals falsely with his neighbor37See Leviticus 5: 24. A fifth must be paid in addition to repaying the capital. [—that soul shall be guilty].” He states [here] to commit a trespass against the Eternal, which means that he swears by His Name falsely and is thus guilty before Him [as well]. Now because this sin has already been mentioned,35Leviticus 5:21-26. See Vol. III, pp. 56-57. and here it only comes to introduce the new point concerning robbing a proselyte,36Further, Verse 8. He deals with it briefly. He stated here a man or woman because since it is not usual for a woman to rob, [we might think that] perhaps Scripture does not make her liable to pay the additional fifth37See Leviticus 5: 24. A fifth must be paid in addition to repaying the capital. or to bring a guilt-offering [when she confesses the sin]38Ibid., Verse 25. like a man, [therefore He stated here a man or woman, teaching that her liability is in all respects the same as that of a man]. He mentioned [here], And every heave-offering of all the holy things of the children of Israel, which they present unto the priest, shall be his,39Verse 9. meaning to say that once they have given the heave-offering to the priest it becomes his [personal property], and he who robs it from him is to be dealt with in accordance with the law of the guilt-offering for robberies.35Leviticus 5:21-26. See Vol. III, pp. 56-57. That is the reason why He mentioned it here. Or it may be that [this verse] comes to complete the laws of the priests regarding the heave-offering, since till now He only mentioned them by way of allusion, [stating] Thou shalt not delay to offer of the fulness of thy harvest, and of the outflow of thy presses,40Exodus 22:28. See Ramban ibid., (Vol. II, pp. 398-400). and so also, they may eat of his bread,41Leviticus 22:11. but He did not explain the law of the heave-offering at all, that it is to be given to the priest; and as for the tithe, He [only] mentioned at the end of Torath Kohanim [i.e., the Book of Leviticus] that it is holy unto the Eternal.42Ibid., 27:30. Now, therefore, He came to command that the heave-offering and the holy gifts should belong to the priests by the grant of the owners, who may give them to them as they please, meaning to say that the benefit of satisfaction [of choosing to whom to give it] belongs to the owner [and the priest may not come and take it by force, since the owner may have the pleasure of giving it to any priest he chooses].
The meal-offering of the sotah43A sotah is a woman suspected of adultery, and is subject to the laws explained further on in Verses 11-31. The law concerning her meal-offering is found in Verse 15, where it is called a meal-offering of jealousy. is not mentioned together with the other meal-offerings in Torath Kohanim [i.e., Leviticus Chapter 2] because it is a meal-offering of jealousy43A sotah is a woman suspected of adultery, and is subject to the laws explained further on in Verses 11-31. The law concerning her meal-offering is found in Verse 15, where it is called a meal-offering of jealousy. and does not come for atonement, therefore He completed the law thereof here [in the Book of Numbers]. Besides, since He traced the genealogy of the people by their fathers’ houses, He now gave them a law and judgment to ascertain who are the mamzerim44The word mamzer, according to the final decision of the law, refers to a child born of a union which is prohibited, with the penalty of excision. It thus covers a child of any incestuous or adulterous relationship. who are not the children of their mothers’ husbands, when there arises a suspicion in a man’s heart concerning his wife.
Similarly He completed here [the laws of] the offerings with the law of the Nazirite, for [only] after the Tabernacle was put up and the impure people separated from the camp, He took of their young men for Nazirites,45Amos 2:11. who crowded at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting,46Exodus 38:8. to stand before the Eternal to minister unto Him, and to bless in His name.47Deuteronomy 10:8. Furthermore, a woman who makes the Nazirite vow is the opposite of the sotah,43A sotah is a woman suspected of adultery, and is subject to the laws explained further on in Verses 11-31. The law concerning her meal-offering is found in Verse 15, where it is called a meal-offering of jealousy. [and for this reason the law of the Nazirite follows that of the sotah]. Therefore He stated in the section [of the Nazirite], when either man ‘or woman’ utter a vow, the vow of a Nazirite.48Further, 6:2. Since the law of vows applies equally to men and women, why did Scripture mention here or woman? It is to hint that this woman who takes upon herself the Nazirite vow, is the opposite of the sotah whose law has just been stated in the preceding section. Our Rabbis have furthermore said:49Sotah 2 a. “Why is the section dealing with the Nazirite placed next to the section dealing with the sotah?43A sotah is a woman suspected of adultery, and is subject to the laws explained further on in Verses 11-31. The law concerning her meal-offering is found in Verse 15, where it is called a meal-offering of jealousy. [It is to tell us] that whoever sees a sotah in her disgrace should abstain [by means of a vow] from wine,” the reason being that harlotry, wine, and new wine, take away the heart.50Hosea 4:11. And [the commandment that] the Nazirite should let his hair grow loose is because this is the opposite of [the habit of] young men who curl their hair in order to beautify themselves, for allowing the hair to grow loose causes anxiety in man’s heart,51Proverbs 12:25. and therefore the Nazirite is holy52Further, 6:8. and must guard himself from impurity,53Ibid., Verse 7. for he is like the priest who ministers before his G-d [who likewise must be pure for service at the Sanctuary].
The meal-offering of the sotah43A sotah is a woman suspected of adultery, and is subject to the laws explained further on in Verses 11-31. The law concerning her meal-offering is found in Verse 15, where it is called a meal-offering of jealousy. is not mentioned together with the other meal-offerings in Torath Kohanim [i.e., Leviticus Chapter 2] because it is a meal-offering of jealousy43A sotah is a woman suspected of adultery, and is subject to the laws explained further on in Verses 11-31. The law concerning her meal-offering is found in Verse 15, where it is called a meal-offering of jealousy. and does not come for atonement, therefore He completed the law thereof here [in the Book of Numbers]. Besides, since He traced the genealogy of the people by their fathers’ houses, He now gave them a law and judgment to ascertain who are the mamzerim44The word mamzer, according to the final decision of the law, refers to a child born of a union which is prohibited, with the penalty of excision. It thus covers a child of any incestuous or adulterous relationship. who are not the children of their mothers’ husbands, when there arises a suspicion in a man’s heart concerning his wife.
Similarly He completed here [the laws of] the offerings with the law of the Nazirite, for [only] after the Tabernacle was put up and the impure people separated from the camp, He took of their young men for Nazirites,45Amos 2:11. who crowded at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting,46Exodus 38:8. to stand before the Eternal to minister unto Him, and to bless in His name.47Deuteronomy 10:8. Furthermore, a woman who makes the Nazirite vow is the opposite of the sotah,43A sotah is a woman suspected of adultery, and is subject to the laws explained further on in Verses 11-31. The law concerning her meal-offering is found in Verse 15, where it is called a meal-offering of jealousy. [and for this reason the law of the Nazirite follows that of the sotah]. Therefore He stated in the section [of the Nazirite], when either man ‘or woman’ utter a vow, the vow of a Nazirite.48Further, 6:2. Since the law of vows applies equally to men and women, why did Scripture mention here or woman? It is to hint that this woman who takes upon herself the Nazirite vow, is the opposite of the sotah whose law has just been stated in the preceding section. Our Rabbis have furthermore said:49Sotah 2 a. “Why is the section dealing with the Nazirite placed next to the section dealing with the sotah?43A sotah is a woman suspected of adultery, and is subject to the laws explained further on in Verses 11-31. The law concerning her meal-offering is found in Verse 15, where it is called a meal-offering of jealousy. [It is to tell us] that whoever sees a sotah in her disgrace should abstain [by means of a vow] from wine,” the reason being that harlotry, wine, and new wine, take away the heart.50Hosea 4:11. And [the commandment that] the Nazirite should let his hair grow loose is because this is the opposite of [the habit of] young men who curl their hair in order to beautify themselves, for allowing the hair to grow loose causes anxiety in man’s heart,51Proverbs 12:25. and therefore the Nazirite is holy52Further, 6:8. and must guard himself from impurity,53Ibid., Verse 7. for he is like the priest who ministers before his G-d [who likewise must be pure for service at the Sanctuary].