Комментарий к Бамидбар 6:21

מלבד אשר תשיג ידו [THIS IS THE LAW OF THE NAZARITE WHO HATH VOWED, AND OF HIS OFFERING UNTO THE LORD …] BESIDES THAT WHICH HIS HAND SHALL GET — This implies that if he vowed: “Behold, I take upon myself to become a Nazir under the condition that I shall cut my hair (i.e. that I shall make the final ceremony) in connection with the offering of a hundred burnt offerings and a hundred feast offerings” (whilst really there is prescribed a single offering of each kind) — then כפי נדרו אשר ידור כן יעשה ACCORDING TO THE VOW WHICH HE HATH VOWED MUST HE DO, but “in addition to (על) what is prescribed in the usual law of the Nazarite”. In addition to it, but not omitting any of it — so that if he vowed: “Behold, I take upon myself to become a Nazir five times under the condition to cut my hair (i.e. to make the final ceremony once) in connection with the offering of only these three animals (i. e. one עולה, one שלמים and one חטאת, whilst after the elapse of each term an עולה and a שלמים offering are due), I do not read with reference to him (i.e. I do not apply to him the words): “According to the vow which he vowed, so must he do” [— but he must bring each of the offerings five times as prescribed] (Sifrei Bamidbar 38).

THIS IS THE LAW OF THE NAZIRITE WHO VOWETH HIS OFFERING UNTO THE ETERNAL FOR HIS NAZIRITEHOOD, BESIDES THAT WHICH HIS MEANS SUFFICE. The correct meaning of the verse is as if it had said: “This is the law of the Nazirite who voweth a vow of the Nazirite;¹⁰⁹The verse cannot be understood literally, for “the law of the Nazirite” does not consist of a vow to bring a sin-offering; rather, “the law of the Nazirite” is that he must not eat grapes or drink wine, nor defile himself by contact with the dead, and the offering is brought on fulfillment of the Nazirite vow. Hence Ramban explains that the meaning of the verse is: “this is the law of the Nazirite who vows a vow of Naziritehood, etc.” his offering unto the Eternal for his Naziritehood shall be besides that which his means suffice.” Or it may mean: “This is the law of the Nazirite, and this is the law of his offering unto the Eternal for his Naziritehood.” It is possible that He is saying: “This is the law of the Nazirite, that he vow his offering unto the Eternal for his Naziritehood,” meaning to say that he should not specify a particular animal as an offering, but should vow: “I shall bring an offering for my Naziritehood,” or he should simply say: “I am a Nazirite,” for as soon as he vowed to be a Nazirite, it is [already] binding upon him as a vow [to bring] the offering mentioned [in the Torah]. He reverts and states, besides that which his means suffice, [meaning to say] that if he is rich he may [voluntarily] increase his offerings [i.e., the burnt-offerings and peace-offerings, as will be explained, but not the sin-offering]; and according to his vow which he voweth concerning these offerings, whether [he is] rich or poor, so he must do after the law of his Naziriteship — so that he may bring more, but not less [than what Scripture prescribes for him to bring]. He mentioned this in order to teach us that if the Nazirite was rich and wants to bring several offerings, or if he vowed at the beginning: “I am a Nazirite and I shall bring a thousand burnt-offerings and peace-offerings,” then he must bring them all on the day of completion [of his time as a Nazirite], and he may not drink wine until he has offered them all up, for they all constitute the law of his Naziriteship. It is possible that [the latter half of the verse means]: “besides that for which his means suffice so must he do according to his vow which he voweth.” This He mentioned because it is usually the rich who vow in this way.¹¹⁰At first Ramban explained the expression besides that which his means suffice as referring to the rich, and according to his vow which he voweth as applying to the poor, as explained above. Now Ramban interprets both expressions as applying to the rich, for it is usually they who vow to bring several burnt-offerings or peace-offerings. The reason why Ramban gives this interpretation may be because it is unnecessary for Scripture to state specifically that a poor Nazirite must bring the minimum number of offerings, as was explained in the first interpretation, since this is self-understood.

מלבד אשר תשיג ידו, if he had vowed to offer a number of sacrifices these have to be offered in addition to the mandatory offerings demanded by the Torah. This word מלבד is familiar to us in this context from Leviticus 23,38.

זאת תורת הנזיר, “this is the law with respect to the Nazirite.” Concerning the offering the Nazir has to bring at the end of the term of his vow of abstinence, Nachmanides writes that the unusual words קרבנו אשר ידור לה', ”his offering that he is to vow to Hashem,“ may mean that he must not have any additional thoughts in mind when bringing the prescribed offering, and the word זאת in the above verse may draw our attention to the fact that the relative value of the offering is not determined by his financial ability, as it is in the case of many sinners where the Torah settles for even a meal-offering when the party obliged to bring the offering is in financial difficulties, but is a fixed standard, involving three mammals and a meal-offering. He may even be expected but not be obligated to add another animal or two corresponding to his ability. It is also possible to explain our verse as saying that if at that time the Nazirite simply says: “this is my offering for my vow,” this is sufficient, seeing that as soon as he had made the vow to become a Nazirite he had been aware that at the end of the term he would have to bring the offerings in question.

Relative to a hundred burnt-offerings. But not relative to a hundred sin-offerings. When the Torah writes “what he can afford to bring” it only refers to offerings that come as vowed-offerings or freewill-offerings that are dependent on what one can afford.

V. 21. זאת תורת וגו׳ מלבד וגו׳ כן יעשה על תורת נזרו. Dies ist das dem Nasir für den Schluss seines Gelübdes Vorgeschriebene. Dabei steht es ihm jedoch frei על תורת נזרו, außer und neben der Erfüllung dieses ihm Vorgeschriebenen noch durch עולות ושלמי נדר ונדבה seinen besonderen Gedanken, Empfindungen, Gesinnungen und Vorsätzen Ausdruck zu geben.

על נזרו, “on account of the vow which he shall pledge.” Compare this construction with: Leviticus 1,4: לכפר עליו, “to be acceptable to atone for him.” Compare also Psalms 44,23: כי עליך הורגנו, “since for Your sake we have been killed, etc.

מלבד אשר תשיג ידו, “apart from what he personally is able to afford.” This is an encouragement to the wealthy Nazirite not to be content merely with the offerings specified in the Torah.

Increase but not reduce. Meaning that because the verse explains “according to his vow that he vow, so shall he fulfill” this implies whether one increased or reduced from what was prescribed. Therefore it writes “על (in addition to) the laws of his nazirite [vows]” where על literally means “upon” – such as when one vows more than the law of the nazirite vow. However if it was less than the law of the nazirite vow, such as where one said “I am hereby a nazirite five times …” [this is not effective].

Vergegenwärtigen wir uns diese ganze Institution des Nasirtums, so ist sie eine jedem Individuum im Volke eröffnete Gestattung, für das Bedürfnis einer von ihm angestrebten geistigen und sittlichen Veredlung sich zeitlich zu einer priesterlichen, ja hohepriesterlichen Stellung zu erheben, in welcher sein Gott nahendes Streben durch Fernbleiben von טומאת מת sich wesentlich kennzeichnet. Es entspricht dies daher offenbar dem שילוח טמא מת aus מחנה שכינה.

”מלבד אשר תשיג ידו, “beside that which he can afford.” This is also a construction which we find elsewhere, as for instance in Leviticus 23,38: מלבד מתנותיכם, “beside your gifts.”

על תורת נזרו, “in addition to the law governing his abstinence.” Here the Torah spells out once more that whereas it is commendable for the Nazirite at the end of his vow to voluntarily add more offerings, it is forbidden to present less than the offerings stipulated in our text. It may also mean that if this Nazirite had vowed at the beginning of his period of abstinence that he would offer X number of sacrifices at the conclusion of his term, then all these sacrifices fall due on the day his period of abstinence comes to an end. He would therefore not be allowed to drink wine until he had offered all these sacrifices. The above coincides largely with Rashi’s interpretation.

Die drei סוטה ,גזל הגר :פרשיות und נזיר im Zusammenhange zu der vorangegangenen פרשת שלוח מחנה geben daher die Gedankenparallele:

שלוח מצורע aus מחנה ישראל findet seine konkrete Verwirklichung in פרשת גזל הגר, der die Gottesgegenwart im sozialen Volksleben bekundenden Institution:

שלוח זב וזבה aus מחנה לויה findet seine konkrete Verwirklichung in,פרשת סוטה der die Gottesgegenwart im keuschen Geschlechtsleben der Familie bekundenden Institution;

שלוח טמא מת aus מחנה שכינה findet seine konkrete Verwirklichung in פרשת נזיר, der die Gottesgegenwart für jedes in geistiger und sittlicher Heiligung zu Gott aufstrehende Individuum bekundenden Institution.

Alle drei drücken der Gesellschaft, der Familie, dem Individuum den Gott heiligen Stempel auf.