QUESTION: The Gemara cites Rebbi Elazar ha'Kapar who states that a Nazir is considered a "sinner" ("Choteh"), an appellation which, the Gemara explains, applies only to a Nazir who became Tamei and whose Nezirus extended for longer than he expected. He is called a sinner because now that he must observe Nezirus for a longer period of time he might regret having made the Nezirus in the first place (and consequently his Korbanos of Nezirus will be "almost" like Chulin in the Azarah). There is also a concern that he will transgress the Isurim of Nazir since, at the time he accepted them, he did not expect to observe them for so long. One who puts himself into a situation in which he is tempted to sin is called a sinner.

TOSFOS (2b, DH v'Amai) and the Rishonim point out that it is clear from the Gemara elsewhere that Rebbi Elazar ha'Kapar maintains that even a Nazir Tahor is called a sinner because he refrained from drinking wine (the pleasure of which is a gift Hash-m gave to man). Tosfos explains that when the Gemara here says that a Nazir Tahor is not a sinner, it means that he is not considered a serious sinner; his sin is minimal and the Mitzvah to make himself a Nazir overrides the minimal sin of prohibiting himself from wine. Tosfos compares this to the Gemara in Berachos (31b) which says that a person who is visited by a foreboding dream at night should fast the following day in order to atone for any sins he might have done, and even if the next day is Shabbos he must fast on Shabbos. However, one who does fast for a dream on Shabbos must fast on another day as well in order to atone for the sin of fasting on Shabbos. It is evident that although it is a sin to fast on Shabbos, one who had a foreboding dream Friday night still should fast on Shabbos, because the Mitzvah to fast is greater than the Aveirah involved with fasting on Shabbos.

How can one act be both a Mitzvah and an Aveirah at the same time? If his act involves a transgression, it should be considered a Mitzvah ha'Ba'ah b'Aveirah and the Mitzvah should not be valid. On the other hand, if the Mitzvah of being a Nazir Tahor is so great that it overrides the relatively minor matter of abstention from wine, in what way is he considered a sinner? Since he did the will of Hash-m by being a Nazir Tahor, what sin did he commit? (RAV ELAZAR MOSHE HA'LEVI HOROWITZ)

(a) The Gemara in Avodah Zarah (3b) explains that even when one is exempt from sitting in a Sukah because he is "Mitzta'er" as a result of the hot weather, he still must feel remorse at the loss of the Mitzvah of sitting in the Sukah. Perhaps Tosfos does not mean that the person actually committed an Aveirah by fasting on Shabbos or by making himself a Nazir, but rather that the person should feel remorse at the loss of the opportunity to fulfill the Mitzvah of Oneg Shabbos or the Mitzvah of making a blessing to Hash-m on wine.

This answer is debatable, because the case of a Nazir Tahor (or fasting on Shabbos) differs from the case of one who is exempt from sitting in a Sukah. When a Nazir refrains from wine, he is doing a Mitzvah at that moment and thus he should not necessarily feel bad about the lost opportunity to do the Mitzvah of blessing Hash-m over wine. In the case of the Sukah, however, one who is exempt from sitting in the Sukah does no other Mitzvah at that time.

(b) RAV ELAZAR MOSHE HA'LEVI HOROWITZ explains as follows. Although the situation (the foreboding dream, or the necessity to become a Nazir) required the person to take the action which he took (fasting on Shabbos, or becoming a Nazir), nevertheless had the person been totally righteous he would not have been subjected to the situation of having to fast on Shabbos or to become a Nazir. The sin to which the Gemara refers is the sin which caused the dream or prompted him to make himself a Nazir in the first place.

However, the Gemara in Berachos which says that one must observe a Ta'anis to atone for fasting on Shabbos implies that the Ta'anis on Shabbos itself is the sin. After all, every bad dream forebodes punishment for one's sins, and yet the Ta'anis in those cases is not called a sin.

(c) Another way to understand the Mitzvah-Aveirah duality in a single act is as follows. One who makes himself a Nazir performs a drastic act to repent for his sins and to conquer his Yetzer ha'Ra (see Nazir 4b). Similarly, one who or fasts on Shabbos for his bad dream performs a drastic act to repent for his sins and to avoid the punishments which the dream forebodes. In both cases, the person should have done a less drastic form of Teshuvah. The Gemara in Kidushin (40b) teaches that a Rasha can do complete Teshuvah in one moment and become a Tzadik, if his intentions are pure and he repents with all of his heart. If his repentance necessitates some form of physical suffering, instead of causing himself to suffer he should develop his Bitachon in Hash-m and accept whatever suffering he must undergo as "Yisurim she'Memarkin Avonosav," suffering which purges him of his sins. Since he did not develop his trust in Hash-m but rather took it upon himself to afflict himself by becoming a Nazir or by fasting on Shabbos, his process of Teshuvah involved an element of sin.

Becoming a Nazir, or fasting on Shabbos, is not considered a real Aveirah, though, because on his level of Avodas Hash-m he was permitted to do Teshuvah in this manner. Nevertheless, he is called a "sinner" because he lacked the degree of Bitachon needed to do the more ideal form of Teshuvah. Accordingly, the "sin" is not that he become a Nazir or fasted on Shabbos; rather, the "sin" is that he lacked Bitachon.

QUESTION: When a person says that he will be "Na'eh," beautified, he means one of two possible intentions. He means either that he will become a Nazir and make himself handsome with long hair, or that he will beautify a Mitzvah. The Gemara explains that if he is holding his hair when he makes his statement, it is assumed that he means to make himself a Nazir. The Gemara asks why an acceptance of Nezirus is called "beautifying" if Nezirus is considered a sin, as Rebbi Elazar ha'Kapar teaches.

What is the Gemara's question? When the person says that he will be beautified, he means that he will beautify himself with the long hair of a Nazir. The beautification is unrelated to the Mitzvah of Nezirus; he is not "beautifying" the Mitzvah, but himself.

Similarly, when a person says "Hareinu Mesalsel" ("I will turn it over"), he means one of two possible intentions. He means either that he will become a Nazir and grow long hair which he will turn over, or that he will delve into Torah (and "turn it over"). If he is holding his hair when he makes his statement, it is assumed that he means to make himself a Nazir. TOSFOS (DH Hacha Nami) explains that when he holds his hair he shows that he wants to be "Mesalsel" in a Mitzvah related to hair.

Why does Tosfos assume that one who holds his hair and says, "I will turn it over," intends to "turn over" his hair with a Mitzvah? Perhaps he merely wants to turn over his hair without any Mitzvah which involves his hair.

ANSWER: Apparently, even the act of holding one's hair does not show which of the two intentions he has. Holding his hair clarifies his intention only once it is known what type of "Na'eh" or "Mesalsel" he intended to become. If his intention was to make himself a Nazir, holding his hair demonstrates that. If his intention was to become "Na'eh" with a Mitzvah, and Nezirus is not a Mitzvah, it is assumed that he held his hair merely out of habit or for some other reason and the act was not related to his statement. The Gemara concludes that Nezirus is a Mitzvah, and thus it is assumed that if he meant to say that he will beautify a Mitzvah, the fact that he was holding his hair shows that he intended to beautify a Mitzvah which involved his hair. Similarly, when he holds his hair and says "Hareini Mesalsel," he means either that he will become a Nazir with long hair, or that he will involve himself with a Mitzvah that involves growing hair.

How, though, does this approach explain the next case in the Mishnah, "Hareini Mechalkel"? The Gemara says that "Mechalkel" means either that he will "curl" his hair by growing the long, curly hair of a Nazir, or that he will "provide sustenance" for poor people. In that case, how is it possible to say that he means that he will provide sustenance by becoming a Nazir? It must be that his act of holding his hair shows which one of the two intentions he had, and thus there should be no doubt.

Perhaps the answer is that there, too, holding his hair does not indicate that his statement of "Mechalkel" means that he will grow the hair of a Nazir, but perhaps it means that he will provide sustenance for the Kohanim by bringing Korbanos at the end of his Nezirus.

Alternatively, the reason why holding his hair does not clarify his intention and reveal what type of "Na'eh" or "Mesalsel" he intends to become is that whichever type of "Na'eh" he means, the word "Na'eh" means beautiful and the word "Mesalsel" means turning over. He might be holding his hair in order to describe how he will beautify the Mitzvos -- he will turn over the Mitzvos just as a person turns over his hair. Therefore, there is no basis to assume that he wants to become a Nazir unless there is a way to beautify and turn over Mitzvos by becoming a Nazir. However, if the word "Mechalkel" refers to Nezirus, it means to curl hair, but if it refers to providing sustenance, it has no connotation of curling; the word is entirely different. Holding his hair cannot demonstrate how he will support poor people, and therefore it is assumed that he is holding his hair to show that he wants to become a Nazir.