Having written "Al Nefesh Meis Lo Yavo", why does the Torah add 'Aviv, Imo, Achiv and Achoso'?
Nazir, 48b: "Lo Yitama" teaches u that if a person is on his way to bring a Korban Pesach or to circumcise his son and he hears that one of his relatives died, he is not obligated to return in oider to bury them - unless it is for a Meis Mitzvah. 1
Rashi (in B'rachos, 19b): The Torah adds 'Aviv', to preclude a Meis Mitzvah from the prohibition; 2 'Imo', to permit a Meis Mitzvah even when the Nazir is a Kohen; 'Achiv', even if he is a Kohen Gadol, and "Achoso" to obligate someone who is going to Shecht his Korban Pesach or to circumcise his son, to forego the Mitzvah he is on his way to perform and to bury a Meis Mitzvah.
Why does the Torah write both "Lo Yavo" - in Pasuk 6 - and "Lo Yitama" - in the current Pasuk?
Nazir, 42a: These are two distinct La'avin, one not to touch a Meis, the other, not to enter an Ohel ha'Meis. 1
Nazir, 42a: When they occur simultaneously, the Nazir receives two sets of Malkos. See Torah Temimah, note 56.
Why does a person who sees a Sotah in her disgrace need to take on the Chumros of a Kohen Gadol (not to make himself Tamei for his relatives) and to abstain from wine?
Oznayim la'Torah: Because a person who wishes to avoid dropping to a low level must first go to the other extreme for a period of time in order to ultimately attain a level somewhere in between. 1
Oznayim la'Torah: Like a Ba'al Teshuvah who strives to rise above his previous level.
Why does the Torah switch from "Lo Yavo" in Pasuk 6 ro "Lo Yitama"?
, Nazir, 42a: To render the Nazir Chayav irrrespective as to whether he makes himself Tamei via touching a Meis or via being under the same Ohel as one. In fact, he is sometimes Chayav for both simultaneously. 1
Nazir, 61a: "le'Aviv u'le'Imo ... Lo Yitama" precludes Nochrim, who are not subject to Tum'as Meis, from the realm of Nezirus. 2
Having said (in Pasuk 6) "Al Mefesh Meis Lo Yavo", why does the Torah insert the word "be'Mosam"?
Nazir, 63a; To preclude a Goseis (who is on his death-bed), whose room a Nazir is permitted to enter and whom he is permitted to touch. 1
Nazir, 8a: To confine the prohibition of Tum'ah by a Nazir to Tum'as Meis, to preclude Tum'as Tzara'as and Zivus. 2
Sifri: To confine the prohibition to actually rendering himself Tamei - but to permit him to attend the Hesped and to stand in the Shurah following the burial. 3 .
What are the connotations of "Ki Neizer Elokav al Rosho"?
Rashi (in Shir ha'Shirim, 7:6): It means that the Name of Hashem is attached to his locks of hair.
Yerushalmi Nazir, 9:1: It teaches us that if an Eved declares a Neder Nezirus, his master is permitted to block it 1 - seeing as he (the Eved) has another master - besides Hashem - over him.
See Torah Temimah, note 62.
Why does the Torah write "ki Neizer Elokim al Rosho" and not simply 'Alav'?
Sifri: To teach us that Kedushas Nazir takes effect even if he has no hair. 1
The Sifri and Gemara (Nazir 48b) learn from the current Pasuk that a Nazir may be Metamei for a Meis Mitzvah. Why do we not know this from a Kal va'Chomer from a Kohen Gadol, whose Kedushah is permanent?
Because Shimshon whose Kedushah was permanent [yet he was allowed to become Tamei Meis] refutes the Kal va'Chomer. 1
This is like R. Yehudah (in Nazir 4b). Seemingly, R. Eliezer (in Nazir 47a) refutes the Kal va'Chomer, based on the fact that a Kohen Gadol does not bring a Korban for Tum'ah! Therefore if a Kohen Gadol and a Nazir found a Meis Mitzvah, the Kohen Gadol should bury it, and not the Nazir! The Chachamim disagree, but they should agree that the Kal va'Chomer is refuted! (PF)
