Talk:Nazirite

Deletions

The following sourced text was recently deleted by someone who didn't like it. I have restored it (Wetman 21:39, 19 February 2006 (UTC)):

"The Nazarite is "holy unto the Lord" (Numbers 6:8) and must keep himself from becoming ritually unclean. The regulations which apply to him actually agree with those for the High Priest and for the priests during worship, as described in Leviticus and in Ezekiel. This vow required the man (and in the Hellenistic period the woman too) to observe the following:" (text resumes)

The following was inserted:

Becoming a Nazirite Both men and women are able to become a Nazirite. A person becomes a Nazirite by saying "I am a Nazir" or any similar statement. Even looking at a Nazir and saying "Me too" with the intention to be a Nazirite makes one a Nazirite. The vow can be for any duration as stated by the person when he or she makes the vow. Nevertheless, one cannot be a Nazirte for less than thrity days and must be in increments of at least a day."

This has no source and is given no context: who makes up these alleged rules nowadays, for a start? --Wetman 21:39, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

The source is the mishna Nazir, and the talmud nazir as well as the Mishneh Torah. If you can read Hebrew see the mishna [[1]] and the Mishna Torah [[2]] Nazirtie is a not a historical curiosity, but is a real law - see Halacha - practiced by Jews even to this day.

as far as what is in the current version, I don't understand the sentence:

The regulations which apply to him actually agree with those for the High Priest and for the priests during worship, as described in Leviticus and in Ezekiel.

Does this mean that they cannot become ritually impure. That is not true! A regular priest can become ritually impure for a close relative (a Nazirite cannot). And a high priest can become ritually impure for a abandoned course (a Nazirtie cannot)

And I disagree with this:

(and in the Hellenistic period the woman too)

is just not true. Women are and always were included in the laws of Nazirite. The verse itself states Numbers 6:1:

Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them: When either man or woman shall clearly utter a vow, the vow of a Nazirite, to consecrate himself unto the LORD

I know of know source that ever excluded women of this at any time. The Mishna and Talmud also state explicitly that women are included. as for:

(Queen Helena kept it for 14 years, Josephus writes some kept it for 30 days.)

it seems to be that the source is the Mishna is Nazir 3:5. which stated that Queen Helena made a Nazir vow for 7 year but had to redo three times because she became ritually impure. Hence she was a Nazirite for a total of 21 years.

It does not require explaining that "Nazirite" in the first millennium BCE may not follow precisely the same rules as it does in the talmudic tradition, or in modern practice. You might begin with an explanation of why "(or a woman)" is not an interpolation in translations of Numbers 6:1. Why not insert a subsection on the Mishnah passages that elaborate upon nazir, explaining it for the average Wikipedia reader, who is not expected to read Hebrew? And a section on Talmudic development of the practice. If you can re-edit this article to follow the historical development of this concept more closely, that will be excellent, and everyone will be grateful. --Wetman 18:14, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I can explain the Orthodox Jewish perpective on Nazirite, but I don't know how to present that NPOV. According to Orthodox Judaism there was no "development of the practice" but is the same then as it is now. Are there any other sources for the laws of the Nazirite besides the verses themselves? In other words what should be stated in the introduction and what should be in the orthodox Jewish perspective section?

I look at more than a few bibles and I couldn't find one that doesn't say "or a woman" can you show be any bible that doesn't say "or a woman" or any source that excludes women from the laws of the Nazirite? Jon513 21:26, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

+:I have edited Nazirite 3.3 'Nazarites in the New Testament', and it now has all citations and sources noted. Can the notice saying that is does not have and needs citations now be removed? How is that done? Thanks. Linda Lee 06:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

recent changes

"and all intoxicants"

I removed the words "and all intoxicants" as they are POV. It is the Jewish tradition that the Nazirite CAN drink non-grape based intoxicants (see Mishneh Torah Nazir 5:1). I do not know of any sources that say that a Nazirtie cannot drink non-grape based intoxicants, but if there are it should be clearly presented as one of many views on the matter. Jon513 15:32, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

The Torah itself states that a Nazir is forbidden to consume all alcohol.

In Numbers 6:3 it states

"He shall separate [himself] from wine and strong drink, and shall drink no vinegar of wine, or vinegar of strong drink,"

In Hebrew - MYYN W$KR YZYR XMC YYN WXMC $KR

I don't have a copy of the Mishne Torah, so could you quote it (both in Hebrew and English) where is states that a Nazir can consume non-wine alcohol.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brak (talk • contribs).

from Mishneh Torah Haphlah, Nazir (5:1):

א שלושה מינין אסורין לנזיר--הטומאה, והתגלחת, והיוצא מן הגפן בין פרי בין פסולת פרי. אבל השיכר של תמרים, או של גרוגרות, וכיוצא בהן--מותר לנזיר; "ושיכר" (במדבר ו,ג) זה שנאסר עליו בתורה, הוא השיכר של תערובת היין.

my own translation:

"There are three things forbidden to a Nazirite: ritual defialiment, shaving, and any grape derived product - whether from the fruit or the non-eatable parts. But from date wine or [some other source] or anything similar is permitted to the Nazirite. and "strong drink" (Numbers, 6:3) that is forbidden by the Bible is strong drink made from a combination of wine."

I can find the source in the Talmud if you insist on it. Jon513 12:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for giving the text. I would very much like to see the Talmudic source for this. YOu won't need to quote it, just the reference will suffice.

Thanks!

(and in the Hellenistic period the woman too)

I don't know how this was ever put in. Women are and always were included in the laws of Nazirite. The verse itself states Numbers 6:1:

Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them: When either man or woman shall clearly utter a vow, the vow of a Nazirite, to consecrate himself unto the LORD

This is also stated in the jewishencyclopedia ("Women and slaves, who did not have full rights before the religious law, could take the Nazarite vow, but only with the consent of their husbands or owners,") and in the Catholic Encyclopedia ("According to the law in Num. (vi, 1-21) Nazarites might be of either sex.") and in many Jewish Works (Mishneh Torah and Mishna) Jon513 15:41, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

The regulations which apply to him...

I removed the phrase

The regulations which apply to him actually agree with those for the High Priest and for the priests during worship, as described in Leviticus and in Ezekiel.

This statement was partially copied from the Jewish Encyclopedia (As the Jewish Encyclopedia is public domain that is not a copy violation), the full statement read as follows

the regulations which apply to him actually agree with those for the high priest and for the priests during worship (Lev. x. 8 et seq., xxi.; Ezek. xliv. 21).

Leviticus (10:8) reads:

Do not drink wine nor strong drink, thou, nor thy sons with thee, when ye go into the tabernacle of the congregation, lest ye die: it shall be a statute for ever throughout your generations

The connection between the Nazirite's prohibition to drink wine and the prohibition of the priest to drink while serving is stated in the Talmud, but nevertheless this sentence is not for wikipedia for the following reasons

1. The statement in the talmud is not a universal opinion. R' Yehudah disagrees and says that there is no connection
2. The Rambam in the Mishneh Torah (beah Ha'mikdash 1:1-5) rules like R' Yehudah (see the Kesef mishna there)
3. It seems that the connection was only one way. Namely laws about the priest were derived from the Nazirite not the other way around. So if this statement belongs anywhere it should be in a law about the priest no drinking while serving in the temple.
4. The simple meaning of the statement is not true. While there may be some connection between the Nazirite and the priest there are many ways that they are different. For example a Nazirite can drink other non-grape intoxicants while a priest cannot.

In conclusion this statement relates to obscure Halacha exegesis and doesn't belong here Jon513 12:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

A better edit is needed

"The practice of a Nazarite vow is part of the obscurity of the Greek term "Nazarene" that appears in the New Testament; the sacrifice of a lamb and the offering of bread does suggest a relationship with Christian symbolism." How is the practice part of the obscurity? The sacrifice of a lamb make by Jesus is even obscurer. --Wetman 00:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

removed text

I removed the following text from the article. it appears to have been commented out for some time until someone removed the comments. It needs more sourcing.

"The Rav David Cohen HaNazir was the last prominent figure to have declaired a Nazirite vow under the auspices of Rav Kook, the first chief Rabbi of Israel.

"There are still much lower profile Nazirites in Israel to this day.

"Currently there is a community of Nazirites helping Ethiopian Jews build a community in Lachish, Israel. For Hebrew readers, please see: http://www.kalot.net/makeda In English - http://www.geocities.com/makeda_judah

--Jon513 11:12, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

May 14 revision

I have made a major revision to this article, adding a summary of the Jewish Law related to the Nazirite. I plan on adding a section of differing philosophical view of the nazirite in the future (i.e. is the nazirite a good thing or a necessary evil). Jon513 18:15, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Jew vs Israelite

Like most people, I too was ignorant of the difference between a carnal Jew and spiritual Israelite, until I became a Nazirite.

Moses Maimonedes, Jewish theologian, historian, and Talmudist, wrote this about scripture:

"Every time that you find in our books a tale the reality of which seems impossible, a story which is repugnant to both reason and common sense, then be sure that the tale contains a profound allegory veiling a deeply mysterious truth; and the greater the absurdity of the letter, the deeper the wisdom of the spirit."

Rabbi Simeon says it much plainer:

"If a man looks upon the Torah as merely a book presenting narratives and everyday matters, alas for him! Such a torah, one treating with everyday concerns, and indeed a more excellent one, we too, even we, could compile. More than that, in the possession of the rulers of the world there are books of even greater merit, and these we could emulate if we wished to compile some such torah. But the Torah, in all of its words, holds supernal truths and sublime secrets.

"So it is with the Torah. Its narrations which relate to the things of the worlds constitute the garments which clothe the body of the Torah; and that body is composed of the Torah's precepts, gufey-torah (bodies, major principles). People without understanding see only the narrations, the garment; those somewhat more penetrating see also the body. But the truly wise, those who serve the most high King and stood on mount Sinai, pierce all the way through to the soul, to the true Torah which is the root principle of all. These same will in the future be vouchsafed to penetrate to the very soul of the soul of the Torah."

"See now how it is like this in the highest world, with garment, body, soul and super-soul. The outer garments are the heavens and all therein, the body is the Community of Israel and it is the recipient of the soul, that is 'the Glory of Israel'; and the soul of the soul is the Ancient Holy One. All of these are conjoined one within the other.

"Woe to the sinners who look upon the Torah as simply tales pertaining to things of the world, seeing thus only the outer garment. But the righteous whose gaze penetrates to the very Torah, happy are they. Just as wine must be in a jar to keep, so the Torah must also be contained in an outer garment. That garment is made up of the tales and stories; but we, we are bound to penetrate beyond."

Bringing this back on-topic. Only a carnal Jew would:

• not question how Samson could kill so many Philestines and remain consecrated.
• not question why there was a prohibition on grapes. (Why not any other food?)
• not question the significance of hair, and how Samson lost his strength when his hair cut.

Thus to say the Nazirite practise was kept by Jews, who didn't even understand that sacrifice was not meant literally (Hosea 6:6, Isa 66:3, Jer 7:22), is to be a Jew reading the Torah literally.

Since the main editor is not even a practising Nazirite, he's about as qualified to comment on the article as an aitheist Jew would be commenting on Kabballah.

Michael.Pohoreski 04:15, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

This is so rediculously ignorent, you have no business editing this subject. I'm not certain which crazy sect you are a part of, but your interpretation is far from true fact. The Jews were there 2000 years ago when Nazerites existed, the Temple existed, and the sacrifices were carried out. You were not. Further the subject of an article is not nessicarily an authority on the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpaceFalcon2001 (talk • contribs)

In addition, your descriptions of what the "carnal Jew" (a racist title?) assumes are all answered! 1. Samson caused the collapse of the roof killing everyone, including himself, and thusly was not contaminated by dead bodies as he was also killed. He was a Nazir from birth to death. 2. The prohibition on all grape products is very obvious and connected with their lustful connotations! 3. The Nazir is forbidden to cut his hair (unless he comes into contact with a dead body) so that he does not focus on his appearance which is superficial! These, and many more reasons explore the true depth of the Torah, and no modern movement can possibly understand it without a tradition. You are not a nazerite for the simple fact that the conditions to either initiate or end the Nazerine period cannot be fulfilled without the Temple. SF2K1

Hello Michael, it is so nice to see you back on this page. I have read what you wrote several times and I am still not clear what reason you have for changing from Jew to spiritual Israelite. Jon513 18:06, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

bibleverse

user:SpaceFalcon2001 changed the links on Nazirite from {{bibleverse}} to a dirrect link to a chabad website. I think this is a mistake.

1. The bibleverse template allows linking to any number of many bible site. It is incorrect to say that it is only for New Testament. In this case the verses link to machon mamre's parallel Hebrew English edition.
2. Using a template instead of a direct link allows us not be reliant on an external site. In the event that this chabad site go down hundreds of links would have to be changed. However if a site that bibleverse was using goes down, only one link (that of bibleverse) would have to change.
3. I believe that machon mamre is better than the chabad site. Machon mamre is simpler (no ad, Hebrew and English). While having a rashi commentary is very nice, it is a bit too much, it distracts the reader from the simple meaning of the verse.

If you believe that this site has merit you can speak to user:jnothman who administers bibleverse as see if he can add this site to it. That would allay my second misgiving. Jon513 18:24, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

1. Machon Mamre is not a good example of a Jewish translation. Almost every "Jewish" Translation availible online is the 1917 JPS, including the one machon mamre uses. This is very unfortunate as it is a very poor english translation, and relies a great deal from the KJV as claimed by the JPS themselves. It would be sutible if their 1987 translation could be used, but that is not availible online. The only half decent Jewish translation availible online for free is the Judaica Press translation, which is hosted on the chabad website.

2. A valid issue, but there are many external links.

3. Again, the Hebrew is nice, but the MM english translation is greatly lacking. If the rashi is distracting, we can link to the non-rashi version.SF2K1

Do you intend to change every bibleverse? Jon513 19:57, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

As I encounter/notice them, when they concern Hebrew scriptures and concern Jewish understandings of texts. As is established, bibleverse is not really secure for that purpose, as it is a redirect to any number of sites, when the Judaica press translation is essencially the only decent Jewish translation availible free and online (with an optional rashi for clarification which is incredibly nice) as the only other one is the notoriously poor and outdated 1917 JPS. A number of users, including myself, have been doing the same with the quotes themselves. Further, although MM also provides the hebrew, being that this is the english wiki, it's assumed that most people do not understand the hebrew, and it becomes a pointless graphical display combined with a poor translation. SF2K1

I would strongly recommend that you hold off on these edits. Doing so can greatly distrupt wikipedia. Having a centralized template allows for much greater control over common bible verse issues. I will speak to user:jnothman about adding chabad.org to bibleverse. Jon513 20:25, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Please, SF2K1, hold off from any more changes in this manner until the issue is resolved. I have a number of issues:

• PLEASE use a Wikipedia template rather than direct linking. This uniform linking to verse references may allow easy changes later, for instance: if WikiSource materials get good enough, to link to them.
• Most importantly, I can't easily produce links to the chabad.org material because of their use of a CMS which means that the URL of each chapter is not necessarily predictable. If you can produce for me a table corresponding chapters (or series of chapters) to AIDs in the URL, I can put something together for Template:Bibleverse.
• Yes, the translation isn't the best and the JPS 1980s translation is much better, but not free. Yet it's good enough for Mechon Mamre. The parallel Hebrew-English is quite useful for those who can read the Hebrew, and doesn't reduce the information given.
• It is not clear under what legal license Chabad.org is using the Judaica Press material. As far as I could tell, it may be plagiarism: the only Copyright on the page is that of Chabad.org.

Again, please don't change something of a standardised form. The place you should have come first was Template talk:Bibleverse

jnothman ^talk 02:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Update: Judaica Press sources now available with Template:bibleverse. I have made available sources JP (Judaica Press) and JPR (Judaicia Press with Rashi). Is that alright then?

I also wanted to note that what you wrote, SpaceFalcon, "Bibleverse is fine for the new testament, but not for the Jewish scriptures", was quite the opposite of one of my intentions in creating Bibleverse. While I decided to make it open to Christian texts, its primary initial purpose was for the Tanakh. jnothman ^talk 04:43, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Awesome, I'm glad to hear it has been added! As for the statement, I'm glad to hear that it wasn't entirely true. Sorry to have made such a commotion. SF2K1

Nazirites and the New Testament

This section lacks sources and appear to have a good dose of orginal research. Parts of it contradict other parts of wikipedia (according to Nazarene, Nazarene has nothing to do with Nazirite - in hebrew they are completely unrelated!). Jon513 18:18, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

You're correct (of course) about Nazirite/Nazarene, but this is a mistake that's shockingly common. TCC (talk) (contribs) 18:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

My greater concern is that this is a not a mistake, but written by someone with some unique beliefs. See User talk:Michael.Pohoreski#Nazirite. Jon513 18:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

It didn't sound too far off to me. It's generally assumed, on no evidence I know of but his lifestyle, that John the Baptist had taken Nazirite vows. Paul of Tarsus is explicitly said to have shaved his head due to a vow (Acts 18), and this is typically taken to mean as a Nazirite. Similar vows are mentioned in Acts 21, concerning four unnamed men who go into the Temple to "complete...their purification" over seven days with an offering. (Considering that Christian worship requires the consumption of wine, I have no idea how this might work.) The notion that Jesus himself was a Nazirite, on other grounds than the common error related to his home village, I must admit is new to me and may well be OR. TCC (talk) (contribs) 18:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Either way, citations would be nice. TCC (talk) (contribs) 18:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Please explain what is meant by "completely unrelated". Obviously today the words Nazareth/Nazirite and Nazarene get confused. Are the words harder to confuse in Hebrew? Could the words have been confused in New Testament times, like they are today? Perhaps Jesus was a Nazirite, like John the Baptist, but his followers didn't want to say that he learnt his ideas from any teacher other than God, so invented the idea of Jesus of Nazereth. This may explain why the town of Nazereth did not exist at the time of Jesus. (that is not original research) Mike Young 12:03, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

By "completely unrelated" I meant that the words sound nothing alike in Hebrew. To answer your question: Yes, the words are much to confuse in Hebrew. It is very unlikely that the got confused in New Testament times and they are not confused today by anyone who has looked into the issue. Original research does not mean that it does not make any sense. It means that there is not a published reliable sources saying it (WP:RS). If you can find a notable historian or theologian making such a claim, that historian or theologian should be quoted. Jon513 13:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Fellow of the Jesus Seminar Robert M. Price, quoted this on his "The Bible Geek" Radio show, as an explaination for Nazereth being said to be Jesus home town whan it did not exist at the time of the Gospels. Are the words similar in Aramaic or Greek? Mike Young 11:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

He also published this in a book called "The incredible shrinking Son of Man" which said this (p 53)

Despite the rendering of many English Bible translations, Jesus is very seldom called "Jesus from Nazareth" in the Gospels. Mark calls him "Jesus the Nazarene," as does Luke twice (Mark 1:24, 10:47, 14:67, 16:6; Luke 4:34, 24:9), while Matthew, John, and Acts always call him "Jesus the Nazorean" (Matt. 26:71; John 18:7, 19:19; Acts 2:22, 3:6, 4:10, 6:14, 22:8, 26:9), with Luke using this epithet once (Luke 18:37, the Bar-Timaeus episode, where he has replaced Mark's "Nazarene" with it). Some critics have questioned whether the village of Nazareth even existed in the time of Jesus, since it receives no mention outside the Gospels until the third century. Whether that is important or not, the difference between "Nazarene" and "Nazorean" does give us reason to suspect that the familiar epithet does not after all denote Jesus' hailing from a village called Nazareth. "The Nazarene" would imply that, but not "the Nazorean." That seems to be a sect name, equivalent to "the Essene" or "the Hasid." Epiphanius, an early Christian cataloguer of "heresies," mentions a pre-Christian sect called "the Nazoreans," their name meaning "the Keepers" of the Torah, or possibly of the secrets (see Mark 4:11, "To you has been given the secret of the kingdom of God, "but to those outside all is by way of parable"). These Nazoreans were the heirs, supposedly, of the neoprimitivist sect of the Rechabites descending from the times of Jeremiah (Jer. 35:1-10). They were rather like Gypsies, itinerant carpenters. "Nazorean" occurs once unambiguously in the New Testament itself as a sect designation, in Acts 24:5: "a ring leader of the sect of the Nazoreans." Robert Eisler, Hugh J. Schonfield, and others have plausibly suggested that Jesus (and early Christians generally) were members of this Jewish pious sect. Many more modern scholars have followed Strauss in an equivalent theory, seeing Jesus as an apprentice and disciple of John the Baptist, in short, a member of his sect until John was arrested, at which time Jesus would have taken on his mantle as Elisha did Elijah's. Mike Young 11:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

+:I have edited Nazirite 3.3 'Nazarites in the New Testament', and it now has all citations and sources noted. Can the notice saying that is does not have, and needs, citations now be removed? How is that done? Thanks. Linda Lee 06:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The section needs modern scholars who echo these claims to quoted. As it stands now it is dangerously close to WP:OR. Jon513 09:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Gentile Nazirite

I have removed the following (posted by an IP address):

Mainly in the southern US, existting with-in other churches, a sect of modern Nazarites exsist, however their vows are significantly diffrent. Insted of growing the hair, it is cut to a shave at the beginning of each month. (As a sign that purifty can not be achieved humanly.) Modern Nazarites are expressed largely in personal prayer, which takes place at the end of each month, a time of hardship for theirself or a close friend, or after a death. Nazarites also fast in daylight from Christmas until the dawn of the New Year, this is a symbolism of Jesus gift of purity to human kind. A time of private prayer is also spent the night of the turn of the new year, as at the end of each month they last several hours and end with the shaving of the head at dawn. Modern Nazarites rarely meet in groups and also rarely meet more nazarites than those who bring them into the traditions. (This is because it imposses a doctrine of a Personal Faith, one of the few actual thought doctrines of the Nazarite.)

As it lacks content and sources. Jon513 17:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

"even those of family members"

Brak (talk · contribs) removed (perhaps unknowingly) the phrase "even those of family members" from "Avoid corpses and graves". My intention in the statement was the make the reader aware that the commandment of a Nazir to avoid corpses is stricter than that of a priest which can be defiled for close family (Leviticus 21). Jon513 12:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)