Tanach · Rishonim on Tanach · Ramban · Torah
Ramban on Numbers 6:21/רמב"ן על במדבר ו׳:כ״א
אזֹאת תּוֹרַת הַנָּזִיר – שִׁעוּר הַכָּתוּב: זֹאת תּוֹרַת הַנָּזִיר אֲשֶׁר יִדֹּר נֶדֶר נָזִיר, קָרְבָּנוֹ לַה' עַל נִזְרוֹ יִהְיֶה מִלְּבַד אֲשֶׁר תַּשִּׂיג יָדוֹ, אוֹ: זֹאת תּוֹרַת הַנָּזִיר וְזֹאת תּוֹרַת קָרְבָּנוֹ לַה' עַל נִזְרוֹ. וְיִתָּכֵן שֶׁיֹּאמַר: זֹאת תּוֹרַת הַנָּזִיר שֶׁיִּדֹּר אֶת קָרְבָּנוֹ עַל נִזְרוֹ, כְּלוֹמַר שֶׁלֹּא יְפָרֵשׁ דָּבָר בַּקָּרְבָּן רַק יִדֹּר ״אָבִיא קָרְבָּן עַל נִזְרִי״, אוֹ שֶׁיֹּאמַר בִּסְתָם ״הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר״, כִּי כֵּיוָן שֶׁנָּדַר בְּנָזִיר נָדוּר הוּא בַּקָּרְבָּן הַנִּזְכָּר. וְחָזַר וְאָמַר מִלְּבַד אֲשֶׁר תַּשִּׂיג יָדוֹ, שֶׁאִם הָיָה עָשִׁיר יַרְבֶּה בְּקָרְבָּנוֹ, וּכְפִי נִדְרוֹ אֲשֶׁר יִדֹּר בַּקָּרְבָּנוֹת, בֵּין עָשִׁיר בֵּין עָנִי, כֵּן יַעֲשֶׂה עַל תּוֹרַת נִזְרוֹ לְרַבּוֹת וְלֹא לְמַעֵט. וְהִזְכִּיר זֶה לְלַמֵּד שֶׁאִם הָיָה עָשִׁיר וְרָצָה לְהַרְבּוֹת קָרְבָּנוֹת, אוֹ שֶׁנָּדַר בַּתְּחִלָּה ״הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר וְאַקְרִיב אֶלֶף עוֹלוֹת וּשְׁלָמִים״, שֶׁיָּבִיא אֶת כֻּלָּן בְּיוֹם מְלֹאת, וְלֹא יִשְׁתֶּה יַיִן עַד הַקְרִיבוֹ אֶת כֻּלָּם, כִּי הַכֹּל תּוֹרַת נִזְרוֹ. וְיִתָּכֵן ״מִלְּבַד אֲשֶׁר תַּשִּׂיג יָדוֹ״ - שֶׁיַּעֲשֶׂה כְּפִי נִדְרוֹ אֲשֶׁר יִדֹּר, וְהִזְכִּיר זֶה כִּי דֶּרֶךְ הֶעָשִׁיר לִדֹּר כֵּן:
1THIS IS THE LAW OF THE NAZIRITE WHO VOWETH HIS OFFERING UNTO THE ETERNAL FOR HIS NAZIRITEHOOD, BESIDES THAT WHICH HIS MEANS SUFFICE. The correct meaning of the verse is as if it had said: “This is the law of the Nazirite who voweth a vow of the Nazirite;109 his offering unto the Eternal for his Naziritehood shall be besides that which his means suffice.” Or it may mean: “This is the law of the Nazirite, and this is the law of his offering unto the Eternal for his Naziritehood.” It is possible that He is saying: “This is the law of the Nazirite, that he vow his offering unto the Eternal for his Naziritehood,” meaning to say that he should not specify a particular animal as an offering, but should vow: “I shall bring an offering for my Naziritehood,” or he should simply say: “I am a Nazirite,” for as soon as he vowed to be a Nazirite, it is [already] binding upon him as a vow [to bring] the offering mentioned [in the Torah]. He reverts and states, besides that which his means suffice, [meaning to say] that if he is rich he may [voluntarily] increase his offerings [i.e., the burnt-offerings and peace-offerings, as will be explained, but not the sin-offering]; and according to his vow which he voweth concerning these offerings, whether [he is] rich or poor, so he must do after the law of his Naziriteship — so that he may bring more, but not less [than what Scripture prescribes for him to bring]. He mentioned this in order to teach us that if the Nazirite was rich and wants to bring several offerings, or if he vowed at the beginning: “I am a Nazirite and I shall bring a thousand burnt-offerings and peace-offerings,” then he must bring them all on the day of completion [of his time as a Nazirite], and he may not drink wine until he has offered them all up, for they all constitute the law of his Naziriteship. It is possible that [the latter half of the verse means]: “besides that for which his means suffice so must he do according to his vow which he voweth.” This He mentioned because it is usually the rich who vow in this way.110 as referring to the rich, and according to his vow which he voweth as applying to the poor, as explained above. Now Ramban interprets both expressions as applying to the rich, for it is usually they who vow to bring several burnt-offerings or peace-offerings. The reason why Ramban gives this interpretation may be because it is unnecessary for Scripture to state specifically that a poor Nazirite must bring the minimum number of offerings, as was explained in the first interpretation, since this is self-understood.