Midrash sobre Números 6:11

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

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

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

4) "one for a sin-offering and one for a burnt-offering": the owner must dedicate them thus. And whence is it derived that if the Cohein dedicated them, his dedication stands? From: "one for a sin-offering and one for a burnt-offering (Vayikra 5:6): "and he shall bring them to the Cohein."

(Bamidbar 6:9) "And if one die on him, etc.": to exclude a doubt (i.e., a possibility of one's having died on him.) For it would follow (otherwise), viz.: If (in the instance of sotah) where inadvertency was not equated with wilfullness (viz. (Bamidbar 5:13), doubt (i.e., the possibility of her having been adulterous while closeted) was equated with certainty, then here, (in the instance of the Nazirite), where inadvertency was equated with wilfullness, how much more so should doubt be equated with certainty! It is, therefore, written "And if one died on him" (i.e., to his certain knowledge) — to exclude an instance of doubt. "of an instant": to include (his shaving and bringing an offering) (if he becomes tamei) inadvertently. For it would follow (otherwise), viz.: If (in the instance of sotah), where doubt was equated with certainty, inadvertency was not equated with wilfullness, then here, (in the instance of the Nazirite), where doubt was not equated with certainty, how much more so should inadvertency not be equated with wilfullness! It is, therefore, written "of an instant" (i.e., inadvertently). "suddenly": to include (an instance of his becoming tamei) unwittingly. For it would follow (otherwise), viz.: If, (in the instance of sotah), where doubt is equated with certainty, unwittingness (of his being forbidden to her) is not equated with wittingness, here, (in the instance of the Nazirite), where doubt (of his having become tamei) is not equated with certainty, how much more so should unwittingness (of his having become tamei) not be equated with wittingness! And whence is it derived that he is liable (to shave and bring an offering) for wilfullness (i.e., for wilfully having become tamei)? — Do you ask? It follows a fortiori, viz.: If in the instance of swearing (falsely) in respect to (having received) a pledge (viz. Vayikra 5:22), where he is not liable (to bring an offering) for unwittingness, he is liable for wilfullness, then here (in the instance of the Nazirite), where he is liable for unwittingness, how much more so is he liable for wilfullness! — No, this may be true of swearing in respect to a pledge, where he does not receive stripes, as opposed to the instance of the Nazirite, where he does receive stripes. And since he receives stripes, he should not bring an offering. It is, therefore, written (Bamidbar 6:11) "and he (the Cohein) shall atone for him for having sinned against the soul." These are the words of R. Yoshiyah. R. Yonathan says "of an instant": This refers to unwittingness. "suddenly": This refers to inadvertency.

(Bamidbar 6:11) "And the Cohein shall make one a sin-offering and one a burnt-offering": The Cohein shall designate them; one for a sin-offering and one for a burnt-offering. This tells me of designation by the Cohein. Whence do I derive designation by the owner? Do you ask? It follows a fortiori, viz.: If one (the Cohein), who is not permitted to dedicate it (as an offering), is permitted to designate it, then one (the owner), who is permitted to dedicate it, how much more so is he permitted to designate it! And thus, (that designation is by the owner) is it written in respect to a woman who has given birth (Vayikra 12:8) "Then she shall take two turtle-doves or two young pigeons, one for a burnt-offering and one for a sin-offering" — whence we find that there is designation by the Cohein and designation by the owner — whence we find that there is an unqualified ken (the couple of sacrificial birds, [in the instance of the Nazirite, where the Cohein designates them]) and a qualified ken, (in the instance of the child-bearing woman, where she herself designates them, one as a sin-offering and one as a burnt-offering.) "and he shall atone for him for having sinned against the soul": Now against which soul did he sin that he needs atonement? (His sin is) that he deprived himself of wine. Now does this not follow a fortiori, viz.: If one who deprives himself of wine needs atonement, how much more so, one who deprives himself of everything (by fasting)! R. Yishmael says: Scripture speaks of a Nazirite who made himself tamei (by a dead body), it being written "and he shall atone for him by having sinned (i.e., for having defiled himself) by the soul" — a dead soul. "and he shall make holy his head on that day": On the day of his shaving. These are the words of Rebbi. R. Yossi b. Yehudah says: On the day of the bringing of his offerings.