In light of our discussion above, concerning the sin offering of the woman after childbirth, we may perhaps suggest that just as this mother has experienced most powerfully the collision between body and soul, so too the nazir has felt this collision in his life, and therefore he separates himself, to some extent, from this world. When he completes his vow he returns to regular human life, where he will once again experience this forceful conflict.
Perhaps the sin offering of the nazir is similar to the sin offering of the birthing mother in that both of them are in the midst of a positive process, of special Divine closeness, but it is specifically here that they experience most powerfully the collision between body and soul – an inherently necessary collision that testifies to man’s complexity. He is a creature with a soul, capable of achieving special closeness to God, but at the same time he has a physical body, which sometimes interferes with or even overwhelms and dominates this closeness.
It may be that this lack of human completion and perfection is the reason for the sin offering of both the birthing mother and the nazir.
Translated by Kaeren Fish
[1] Why is the mitzva of circumcision mentioned here, in the midst of a unit concerned with matters of purity and impurity? Why is the number of “days of impurity” observed after the birth of a son different from the number of days observed after the birth of a daughter? And why is the burnt offering mentioned here before the sin offering, while usually the sin offering is mentioned first?
[2] And further on in the same chapter: “And if the whole congregation of Israel sins unintentionally, and the matter is concealed from the eyes of the congregation, and they have transgressed one of God’s commandments concerning that which should be done, and are guilty…
If the ruler sins, unintentionally committing one of the commandments of the Lord his God, concerning that which should not be done, and is guilty…
And if a single soul of the common people sins unintentionally, committing one of the commandments of God concerning that which should not be done, and is guilty…” (13,22,27)
“And if a person sins and hears the voice of adjuration, and he is a witness, having either seen it or known of it, then if he does not utter it, he bears his iniquity.
Or if a person touches anything that is impure – whether the carcass of an impure animal, or the carcass of an impure domestic animal, or the carcass of an impure creeping thing, and [the matter] is hidden from him, such that he is impure and guilty,
or if he touches the impurity of man, for any form of impurity with which he may become impure, and [the matter] is hidden from him, and he comes to know of it and is guilty,
or a person who swears, declaring with his lips to do evil or to do good – for whatever a person may express with an oath – and [the matter] is hidden from him, and the matter becomes known to him and he is guilty of one of these…” (5:1-4)
[3] See Ibn Ezra and Meshekh Chokhma
[4] Abarbanel also explains that the purpose of the burnt offering that is brought is “in order to cleave to her Creator, Who has performed wonders for her in delivering her from the pain and danger of childbirth.” The burnt offering, to his view, is the primary sacrifice, and therefore it is mentioned first.
[5] As Malbim explains: “Once the advocate has finished appeasing, the gifts follow.” In other words, where there is sin that must be atoned for, the sin offering must be brought first, and the burnt offering afterwards. Where there is no sin, the burnt offering is brought first. Since the Torah, in prescribing the sacrifices to be brought by the woman after childbirth, specifies the burnt offering first, this represents proof that the sin offering is not required as a result of some sin on her part.
