Wine or Wine Not

This week’s Sedra contains the most Pessukim of any single Parsha in the Torah, and accordingly we learn about many different topics and Mitzvos. There are, however, three consecutive sections at the heart of the Parsha, Sotah, Nazir and Birchas Kohanim, which discuss seemingly disparate Mitzvos, but are linked by a rather surprising thread.

The Gemarah at the beginning of Meseches Sotah, which is brought by Rashi, asks why the Parsha of Nazir follows the Parsha of Sotah and answers: “Lomar LEcha SheKol HaRoeah Sotah B’Kilkulah Yazir Atzmo Min HaYayin”, one who sees the destruction of the Sotah should become a Nazir, so as to stay away from wine, which leads to the types of Aveiros that cause a Sotah.

On the most basic level we can be understand that the Torah is sending us a message: if one sees the destruction of a Sotah, he must realize that there were circumstances that led her to that point, and take a lesson for his own life. This is an important message in itself: we can never look at events as occurring in a vacuum, and we must allow our experiences to affect us. If we see someone stumble in such an extreme fashion, we had better ensure that the same does not happen to us.

On the other hand, the Gemarah seems to be limiting the affects of one who takes Nezirus upon himself. Nezirus is not limited to the consumption of wine—there are other qualifications as well: a Nazir is forbidden from taking a haircut and must avoid Tumas Mes. Why does the Torah seem to focus on the wine aspect of the Nezirus? In fact, if the idea is that one who sees the Sotah B’Kilkulah should avoid wine, he could accomplish the same by taking a mere Neder not to consume wine—why would an actual Nezirus, which includes other Issurim, be necessary?

In fact it is not so clear if the very idea of abstaining from wine is a positive or negative action. The Torah tells us that if a Nazir does become Tammei during the period of Nezirus, he brings a Korban Chattas. The Passuk however is specifically talking about an instance when the Tumah came “B’Pesa Pisom”, suddenly and without warning, leading the Sifri to ask why a Korban Chattas is necessary if the Nazir was clearly unable to prevent himself from becoming Tammei. R’ Elazar HaKafor answers that he brings the Korban “SheTziar Atzmo Min HaYayin”, because he afflicted himself by avoiding wine.

It would seem from the words of R’ Elazar that it is not appropriate for one to avoid wine—if so why does the Torah place Nazir next to Sotah to tell us “HaRoeah Sotah B’Kilkulah Yazir Atzmo Min HaYayin”? Presumably the Nazir who became Tamei B’Pesa Pisom had become a Nazir for the right reasons—why do his actions require a Chattas? In addition, the Levush notes that this only seems to apply to one whose Nezirus is interrupted by Tumah—if he completes the entire Nezirus he still brings a Chattas, but it doesn’t seem that the reason for that Korban is “SheTziar Atzmo Min HaYayin.” What is the difference—why only in the case of Tumah must the Nazir be Mechaper on his Neizurus Min HaYayin?

As we mentioned, the next section of the Parsha is related to Nezirus as well: the Gemarah in Taanis tells us that the Parsha of Birchas Kohanim follows the Parsha of Nezirus to tell us that a Shikur is not allowed to participate in Birchas Kohanim.

Here again we see that the focus of the Parsha of Nezirus is the Issur of drinking wine. Now the Torah already told us, in Parshas Shmini, that a Kohen who is Shikur is not allowed to participate in the Avodah—the Chiddush here is that Birchas Kohanim, which is not technically Avodah, has the same Halacha.

But if the Torah wanted to teach us that, why didn’t the Torah place the Parsha of Birchas Kohanim near the Halachos of Shisuyey Yayin in Parshas Shmini? In fact, the Gemarah in Taanis points out that a Nazir is not only forbidden from drinking wine, but may not eat any part of a grape—even the seeds or skin—and asks if that would be true of a Kohen who wishes to “Duchan.” The Gemarah answers with a Drasha to teach us that just as a Meshares, one who is doing Avodah, is allowed to eat grapes, the Mevarech, one who will say Birchas Kohanim, is allowed to as well.

This only serves to strengthen our question: why did the Torah place the Parsha of Birchas Kohanim next to the Parsha of Nazir to teach us the Halacha of Shikur, if the parameters of the Halachos are not even the same? It therefore seems that the Torah specifically wanted to relate the Mitzvah of Birchas Kohanim to Nazir.

Sotah, Nazir and Birchas Kohanim—three Parshios that would seem to have little relation to one another, are all connected by one thread: wine. The destruction of a Sotah should cause one to become a Nazir in order to avoid wine, and a Kohen cannot say Birchas Kohanim if he has imbibed of that same substance. It would therefore appear that there is something about wine that we are meant to learn from these Parshios.

If we think about it, wine really has a unique place in Yiddishkeit. We often mark occasions over a cup of wine: be it Shabbos or Yom Tov, a Bris or Chuppah, there is always a Brachs of Borei Pri HaGafen. We also know that the Bracha on wine is in fact Hagafen and not Shehakol, like other juices, because wine is an improvement over the grapes that it came from. There are even Pessukim that testify to the positive nature of wine: “V’Yayin Yismach Levav Enosh.”

On the other hand we know that there are some less positive aspects of wine. Chazal tell us that wine loosens ones lips: “Nichnas Yayin Yatzah Sod”. In addition, the Gemarah in Sanhedrin tells us that it was wine that caused the Chet of Adam and Chava, adding that there is no substance that brings Kllalah into the world as wine.

This dichotomy is perhaps best described by Chazal in Avos D’Rebbe Nosson, which tells us: “Shiva Devarim Ruban Kashah U’Miyutan Ra’ah”, there are seven things that are bad in large amounts but good in small doses. The first item on the list is wine; indeed this is a substance that has a dual nature—on one hand elevated and special and on the other almost dangerous.

Perhaps a better understanding of essence of this unique beverage will lead us to clarity with regard to this week’s Parsha.

R’ Tzadok, in Pri Tzaddik, asks an interesting question: why is it that each Seudah on Shabbos or Yom Tov has a requirement of Kiddush Al HaYayin, except Shalosh Seudos? By way of answering this question, R’ Tzadok teaches us what Yayin represents in Yiddishkeit. As we mentioned, according to the Gemarah in Sanhedrin, wine was used for the Chet of the Etz HaDaas. R’ Tzadok explains that a direct outgrowth of that Chet was the arrival of Itzavon, or sadness, into the world. Since that time, any fear or sorrow that we experience is related to the Chet and its effects. The role of wine in our lives is to combat those feelings—to allow us to overcome the affect that the Nachash has on our lives. It is for this reason that the Passuk tells us “Tenu Shechar L’Oved V’Yayin L’Marei Nefesh,” it is through wine that we can overcome Aveilus and the Itzavon that comes with it.

This tool is used throughout our lives a Yidden at times when we wish to prevent the the Nachash from effecting us. At the beginning of a Shabbos meal, at a Simcha, or any other time when we wish to rise above the results of the Chet, we use wine in order to instill joy in our hearts.

Perhaps based on this thought we can understand the various references to Yayin which appear in our Parsha.

When we drink wine we are essentially recognizing that Chet plays a role in our lives, and using the wine to combat its effects. When one witnesses the destruction of a Sotah, however, he should be moved to eliminate Chet from his live in totality. Just seeing the results of the woman’s Averios should cause a person to run as far from Chet as possible. By eliminating wine from his life, the Nazir pledges to face Chet head on, seeking to eliminate Aveiros and their effects without the soothing salve of wine. In a sense this will force the Nazir to focus on that which really makes us happy—Torah and Mitzvos—without the option of using the somewhat artificial joy produced by wine.

This may be why the Nazir is required to stay away from Tummah: as we noted, wine is used to calm and soothe Avelim, those who have been affected by a loss. Because he does not have this tool at his disposal, the Nazir must stay as far from death as possible. This would help explain why the Chattas brought if he did indeed become Tammei is related to the idea of “Tziar Atzmo Min HaYayin”: in the case that he did in fact face the reality of death, his inability to calm himself with wine may lead to an Aveirah, thus a Chattas is necessary. It is not for the Chet of abstaining from wine, but for the Aveiros that may follow when he is exposed to the ultimate Itzavon.

Based on this we can also explain the connection between Birchas Kohanim and Nazir. Before giving Birchas Kohanim to the Tzibbur, the Kohanim themselves recite a Bracha: “L’Varech Es Amo Yisroel B’Ahava.” Their Bracha must come with a sense of Ahava, love for their fellow Jews upon whom they hope to bestow the Birchas Hashem. While wine will bring happiness, the feelings of love that are generated would perhaps be less than genuine—and therefore not befitting of this Bracha.

Therefore, although the Torah previously instructed the Kohanim not to do Avodah when they have had wine, when it comes to Bracha there is a different reason for this Issur, which is why it is placed next to Nazir. In both cases the reason that wine must be avoided is in order to allow a person to experience a more authentic existence, leading to a loftier level of Avodas Hashem and Ahavas Yisroel.

Far be it from me to discourage the consumption of wine. Rather, I think there is an important message in all of this for each of us.

R’ Taddok explains that Chazal were Misaken the Halacha of Kiddush Al HaYayin at the first two meals of Shabbos in order to prevent the sadness of the Nachash from effecting us on this day. When we get to Shalosh Seudos, however, after a whole day of Menucha, of connecting to Hakadosh Baruch Hu, we are less susceptible to the effects of Chet, and wine is not needed to allow us to experience the Kedushas HaShabbos. While in most cases we require wine to provide us the happiness to combat Chet, to reach the level that existed prior to the Nachash, we see that there are times when we can rise to the occasion on our own. Each of us is capable to connecting to Hakadosh Baruch Hu, of living on a plane of Kedusha such that we can reach those levels without the aid of wine. If even for a few moments at the end of a Shabbos or Yom Tov, we too can lead the lives of a Nazir, we can be “Kodesh LaHashem.”