Naso: Three Explanations of the Chatas ha’Nazir (Nazrite’s Sin-Offering)

Synopsis: This is the audio version of the 5-page article I wrote and published on rabbischneeweiss.substack.com/ on 5/29/26 titled: Naso: Three Explanations of the Chatas ha’Nazir (Nazrite’s Sin-Offering). Why must every nazir bring a chatas? I knew about the diametrically opposed answers given by the Rambam and Ramban, but I recently found a third and intermediate explanation in the Sefer ha'Chinuch.

-----

The Torah content for the month of Iyyar is sponsored by Naomi Schwartz Rothschild in memory of her mother, Breindel Bracha bas Mordechai z”l, whose yahrzeit falls on the 8th of Iyyar. She learned and lived Torah, and was a tremendous baalas chesed.

-----

If you've gained from what you've learned here, please consider supporting my work via Patreon, Venmo, Zelle, or PayPal — links below. Even a small contribution helps cover production costs and gives me the freedom to create more Torah content. To sponsor a day's or week's worth of content, or to inquire about tutoring or teaching, reach me at rabbischneeweiss at gmail. Thank you for listening, reading, and supporting my efforts to make Torah ideas available and accessible to everyone.

Patreon | [Venmo: @Matt-Schneeweiss] | [Zelle/PayPal: mattschneeweiss at gmail]

Substack | YouTube | YUTorah | Instagram

Podcasts: The Stoic Jew | Machshavah Lab | The Mishlei Podcast | Rambam Bekius | The Tefilah Podcast

WhatsApp Content Hub | Old Blog | Amazon Wishlist

Transcript

SPEAKER_00 0:00

Hello, I'm Rabbi Schneewiss with a hoarse voice, and this is the audio version of the five-page article I wrote and published on my Substack at rabbi Schneewiss.substack.com on May 29th, 2026. And the article is titled Naso, Three Explanations of the Chattas Ha Nazir, the Nazirite's Sin Offering. The classic question. One of the classic questions about Nazirus, the Nazirite vow of abstinence, is why is every Nasir required to bring a chatas at the conclusion of his or her period of Nazirus? What sin did the Nasir commit? Two seemingly antithetical answers are given by two of our greatest Rishonim, the Rambam and the Ramban. A third answer is succinctly given by the Saifrachinach, but only after a lengthy introductory excursus. Rambam's answer, the sin of asceticism. Rambam's answer in the Mishnah Torah is not found at the end of Hilchos Nazirus, where we'd expect to find it. As per his custom to conclude sections of Halachos with a nod to the Mitsuh's philosophy. Instead, he incorporates his view into his denunciation of asceticism in Hilchos Deus, The Laws of Character Traits, 3-1. Quote, Perhaps a person will say, Since desire, honor, and the like are an evil path, and remove a person from the world, I will separate from them to the utmost and distance myself toward the opposite extreme, to the point where he will not eat meat, nor drink wine, nor marry a woman, nor dwell in a pleasant home, nor wear pleasant clothing, but only sackcloth and coarse wool and the like, such as the priests of Edom, the ascetic priests of Christendom. This too is an evil path, and it is forbidden to follow it. One who follows this path is called a sinner. Behold, regarding the Nasir it says, in Bad Midbar 611, and he shall atone for him for having sinned against the soul. The sages said, If the Nasir who abstained only from wine, requires Kapara, atonement, one who withholds himself from everything, all the more so. Therefore the sages commanded that a person should withhold himself only from those things which the Torah alone withheld from him, and he should not forbid upon himself through vows and oaths things that are permitted. Thus the sages said, Is what the Torah prohibited for you not enough that you prohibit additional things upon yourself? Included in this are those who always fast, for they are not following a good path. And the sages prohibited a person from afflicting himself by fasting. Regarding all these things and others like them, Shlomo commanded and said in Kohellas 7.16, do not be excessively righteous, and do not make yourself overly wise. Why should you destroy yourself? End quote from Kohellas and the Rama. Ramam's main point is clear. Judaism is not an ascetic religion. He writes at length in the preceding chapters one and two of Hilkis Deus, and earlier in his Shemonaprakim, chapters three through four, that the Torah's ideal is moderation. Worldly pleasures per se are not evil. Extremes are. Overindulgence, excessive lust, and hedonistic addiction are evil, but so is underindulgence, extreme abstinence, and self-affliction. The Nazir may have a valid reason for swearing off wine, but he must recognize that this abstention from permissible pleasure involves a philosophical wrongdoing. My Rebbe, Rabbi Moskowitz Zatzal, was fond of quoting the Ushami Kidushin 412.3 to support this view. Quote, Ravchiskia said in the name of Rav Kohin in the name of Rav, in the future a person will have to give an accounting and reckoning, Din Vacheshbon, for everything that his eyes saw that he did not eat. The Korban Haida comments, for he sinned against himself, literally against his soul, by afflicting himself for no reason. End quote. The Ramah maintains that there are valid reasons for becoming a Nazir, as we'll later see, but every Nasir is required to acknowledge through his khatas that any abstinence from the enjoyments provided to us by the Creator partakes of sin and requires kapara. Rumban's answer, the sin of returning to worldly pleasure. The Ramban gives what appears to be a diametrically opposed explanation of the khatas and Nasir. Quote, the reason for the khatas that the Nazir brings on the day he completes the days of his Nazirus is not explained. By way of Pshat, the straightforward meaning, this man sins against his soul when the Nazirus is completed, for he is now withdrawing from his kidusha, holiness, and the service of Hashem. And it would have been fitting for him to remain separated forever and to stand all his days as a Nazir and holy to Hashem his God, as the verse states in Amos 2.11, and I raised up from your sons prophets and from your young men Nizirin. The verse thus equates him to a prophet. And it is as it is written in Babidwar 6:8, all the days of his Nizirus he is holy to Hashem. Thus he requires Kapara for returning to become defiled by the Ta'avos Haulam, desires of the world. End quote. Unlike the Rambam, who regards Nazirus as catering to an asceticism that runs contrary to Torah values, the Ramban paints it in a positive light. Ideally, one should remain a nazir forever. The return to the defilement of worldly desires is considered a sin that requires kapara, and that is why every nazir brings a khatas. Explaining the machlokus, the disagreement. Rabbi Shnewai's trivia fact. Which machlokus have I formerly taught in class more times than any other? The answer? This machlokus is about the chatas and nazir. Why? Because back when I taught at Midresha Shall Hevett High School for Girls, I used to give a five-minute model lesson on this machlokus to prospective students at the open house. I did that five to seven times each year for the better part of a decade. For this reason, I am just going to give the same explanation here that I gave to the eighth graders. I'm sure it could be developed beyond what I'm going to say, but that is not the aim of this article. Feel free to post your own theories in the comments. On the surface, it seems like this is a major machlokus about the Torah's value system. Does Judaism maintain that pleasure is good and asceticism is bad, Rambam, or that asceticism is good and pleasure is bad, Ramban? It's not that such a basic dispute would be impossible, but all things being equal, we aim to minimize Mach Lokus, assuming that our greatest thinkers agreed on the fundamentals, unless we are compelled to think otherwise. In that vein, I would like to suggest that this Machlokus is not about whether pleasure is good or bad, it's about the function of Nazirus as an institution. Stated succinctly, according to the Rambam, Nazirus is a teshuva program designed to cure an illness of the soul. According to the Ramban, Nazirus is a kidusha program designed to help the Nasir reach a higher level. Allow me to explain. Rambam explains in Hilgos Deus 2, 1 through 2, that if a person suffers from a sickness of the soul by which he is so addicted to one extreme that he regards the good as bad or the bad as good, the remedy is to force himself to go to the opposite extreme and live that way for a period of time until he can return to the middle path. This is how the Rambam views the Nazir's abstention from wine and his growing out and shaving off his hair, as he writes in Hill's Nadarim 1323, quote: If a person makes nadarim vows in order to establish his character traits and correct his conduct, this is praiseworthy and laudable. How so? If a person was a glutton and forbade meat to himself for a year or two, or one who was given to wine and forbade wine to himself for an extended period, or forbade himself ever to become intoxicated, and likewise one who chased after payoffs, i.e., bribes, and was frantic for wealth, and forbade gifts to himself, uh, or forbade benefit from the people of a particular province, and likewise one who took pride in his own appear beauty and made a neder nazir, a nazirite vow, and the like in matters such as these, all of them are a form of a voda lashem, divine service. And concerning these nadarim and those like them, the sages said, Nadarim are defense for precious, uh, abstention from physical indulgence. Avos 313. End quote. When teaching this to the eighth graders, I use the example of a candy addiction. Candy is not inherently harmful as long as it is consumed in moderation, but if a kid can't control himself around candy, he may need to abstain for a period of time until he's able to establish a healthier relationship with it. That is what the nauseer is doing, forbidding himself from partaking of a permissible pleasure to cure his own addiction. In contrast, the Rumban holds that becoming a nauseer is like committing to getting in shape and actually following through with it, following a strict diet, maintaining an exercise regimen, practicing sleep hygiene, and doing everything necessary to reach peak physical condition, going far beyond the average person's lifestyle. If one succeeds in reaching this high standard of living, ideally he should remain that way forever. That is how the Ramban sees the nazir. Most Jews live in accordance with the common standards of Kedusha, observing the laws of forbidden foods and forbidden relations. But one who becomes a nazir reaches a higher level of kiddusha. Now we can understand the Machlokas. The Rambam and the Ramban do not disagree about the Nazir's sin because they hold different value systems, but because their differing understandings of Nazirus result in different definitions of sin. Since the Rambam conceives of Nazirus as a teshuva program to break an addiction to a physical pleasure through abstention, that abstention itself constitutes a sin for the reasons stated above. In contrast, the Ramban views Nazirus as a vehicle for ascending in Kadusha. And while involvement in worldly pleasures would not be considered sinful for the average person, it would constitute a descent for one for someone who had reached those heights and could maintain them going forward, but chooses not to. Preface to the Sefer Rachinoch's explanation. This year I discovered a third approach, that of the Sefrachinach in mitzvah number 374, whose view sits between the Rambam and the Ramban. While the crux of his answer can be found in just a few sentences at the end of his explanation, I think it's worthwhile to present it in its full context. He begins with an introduction. Quote, Among the roots of the mitzvah, a preface. I already wrote in the introduction at the opening of the book that since there exists in the world of a Qadash Barakho a creature composed of matter and intellect, namely man, it was a fitting and necessary thing in order that God's praise should rise properly from his creatures, that with this creature his world should lack none of the possibilities that are within our capacity to grasp, etc., as I wrote there. End quote. In his introduction, the Seifra Khanakh speculates about why it was necessary for Hashem to give us the Torah, seeing as how nothing we do affects him in any way. He theorizes that because Hashem is perfect, the universe he created must also be perfect, and a perfect universe would include every kind of existence. One, purely physical creations that lack intelligence and are subject to change, animals, plants, metals, etc. Two, pure intellects that are permanent and unchanging, angels or separate intelligences. Three, hybrid corporeal intelligences that are permanent and unchanging, celestial spheres and bodies, a category we now know does not exist, as I wrote about in my article on AI and angelic intelligence. And four, hybrid corporeal intelligences that are subject to change, human beings. The Siphinach marvels at this last category. Quote, even though matter and intellect are complete opposites, he, God, combine them together through the greatness of his wisdom and fashioned the human being from them. If so, it is in any case necessary that that intellect which is mixed with matter, which is the human being, know his creator and recognize him in order to complete the purpose of his creation. But were it not for the Torah that he gave him, the intellect would be drawn entirely after matter in all its desires, and man would be likened to the beasts, and thus the divine work would not be completed, since the body of man and the body of animal would be in one essential character, even though not one in form, and a deficiency would be found in his in his act of creation. Thus, according to our words, the giving of the Torah was necessary to make the hearts of men intelligent for the perfection of the creations. End quote. You too might be skeptical about the validity of this entire theory, but since his explanation of the Khatas and Nasir is predicated on it, let us suspend our disbelief and hear what he has to say. His explanation of the Nasir continues, quote, There is no doubt that were it not for this reason, on account of which our intellect was required to dwell within matter that is subject to desires and sins, our intellect would have been fit to stand and minister before its creator and to recognize his glory like one of the divine beings standing before him, i.e. the angels and the celestial bodies. However, because of this necessity, it was subjugated, quote, to dwell in houses of matter, end quote, i.e., physical bodies. And once it was subjugated to this, it is necessary, it is necessarily compelled to turn aside at times from the service of its creator and to exert itself for the needs of the house in which it dwells. For the structure of the house, its wood, stones, and foundations, cannot endure unless a person attends to it. End quote. In other words, even though the operation of our intellect is delimited by our physicality, this is by design. God did not create us as pure intelligences, as he did the angels. He created us as mutable corporeal intelligences who must exert our minds over our matter to know our Creator. Such a hybrid creature will necessarily need to tend to its material needs, since that is its nature. He continues, quote, If so, since the intent in the creation of man is, as we have said, whenever his intellect is able to reduce its service of his physical matter and set it its aim towards the service of the Creator, then it is good for it, provided that he does not abandon the work of the house entirely and destroy it. For this too would be considered a sin for him, since the king desired to have such a creature. End quote. This is clearly God's will. Otherwise, he wouldn't have created humans in the first place. Seifr Akinoch's answer The Sin of Miscalculation. It is at this point that the Sefer Achinoch segues into his explanation of nausea, beginning with some of the same statements of Khazal cited by the Rambam, but taking them in a different direction. Quote, and as Rabbi Yoshi said in Tinus 22b, an individual is not permitted to afflict himself by fasting. And Rabbi Huda explained in the name of Rav the reason of Rabbi Yossi, because it is written in Braeshis 2.7, and man became a living soul. The Torah said, This soul that I place within you, keep it alive. And concerning this, the wise king said in Kohela 7:16, Do not be overly righteous and do not make yourself excessively wise. Why destroy yourself? This is the sanctity of the Nazir and his exalted level, that he leaves the work of matter and breaks his desires through that which is not a total destruction of the house, such as refraining from drinking wine and growing his hair. For through this the inclination will be subdued, and the house will not leak because of it, nor will its corners be demolished. Rather, the service of the intellect will be strengthened through it, and its paths will be illuminated, and the glory of Hashem will dwell upon him. And in this man the intent of creation will be fulfilled, without the service of his intellect to his creator being diminished because of the partnership of matter within him. So far the Sefrachin sounds like the Ramban. Nazirus is not a method of breaking a physical addiction, but a regimen for leveling up in one's Avodas Hashem by attaining a higher level of mind over matter. He goes on to explain how the halachos pertaining to Nasir's hair fit into his explanation. Quote, the proof of this, of that, the proof that the matter of growing the hair is likewise for the sake of subduing the Yetir is in what the sages of Blessed Memory said in Nasir 4B, now available as a full-color AI art manga style adaptation. Quote, Rubishimun Hatzadik said, In all my days I never ate from the Asham, the guilt offering of a defiled Nasir, except for one man. A certain man came before me from the south. He had beautiful eyes and was good looking, and his locks of hair were arranged in ringlets. I said to him, My son, why do you see fit to destroy this beautiful hair of yours? He said to me, I was a shepherd for my father in my town. I went to draw water from the spring, and I gazed at my reflection. My Yetzir leapt upon me and sought to drive me from the world. I said to it, Empty one, why do you grow proud in a world that is not yours, over one who is destined to become food for maggots and worms? By the temple service, I swear I will shave you for the sake of heaven. I stood up and kissed him on the head, and I said to him, May there be many like you among the Nodre Naziros, those who vow Nazirim uh vows in Israel. Of you does scripture say, When a man shall make a wondrous vow, the vow of Nazir, to consecrate himself to Hashem. End quote from the story, but still continuing the Zivrachinach. Therefore, in order to subdue the Yeter, he was also commanded to shave all his hair upon the completion of the days of his Naziros, and he was not permitted to arrange it or to remove some of it, so that his inclination should not return upon him as at first. Rather, he was required to shave it entirely, for there's no doubt that the exceedingly long that exceedingly long hair or completely shaving spoils a person's appearance. End quote. As an aside, I suspect that when most of us think about a nazir, we imagine someone with long, wild, unkempt hair assuring, sorry, assuming that this strikingly visible distinction is a core part of the Nasir's identity. But the Nasir in Ruby Shimon's story cared more about how shaving his hair would make him look. Okay. Finally, we get to the crux of the Sefer Khinoch's answer. Uh sorry, we get to the crux of the Sefer Khinoch's explanation of the Khatas and Nasir. Quote, and do not challenge me concerning this reason that I have written on the basis of what the sages said in Nazir 19a, let him bring kapara for himself for having afflicted himself by abstaining from wine. For this too can accord with our rationale. For since I said that permission is not given to a person to destroy his house or to damage anything in the structure that the first builder built, it is proper for him to bring kapara for his soul. Perhaps he deviated from the boundary incumbent upon him regarding his body and soul. For perhaps his nature and constitution are such that Nazirus is too much affliction for his soul. And all the ways of Hashem, blessed is he, are upright and the righteous shall walk in them. End quote. As explained earlier, living in line with our design as humans requires a delicate balancing act, striving to lead a life of intellect while maintaining the upkeep of the bodily house. Most people are prone to indulging their physicality to the detriment of their intellect. Some are motivated to take on nasirus in an effort to reduce their household needs so they can devote even more time to their intellectual life. But there's always the risk that in attempting to make do with less, they inadvertently harm their intellect by depriving its material base. Summary. According to the Rambam, the Nasir's sin is abstaining from pleasure, which caters to the evil path of asceticism, even if done in the context of a necessary rehabilitation from addiction. According to the Ramban, the sin is terminating one's nazirus, descending from the heights of kiducia one had attained, and returning to worldly desires. And according to the Sefer Achinoch, the sin is the inadvertent damage done to one's intellect by pushing the ascetic regimen further than one's particular nature and constitution can bear.