This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Nazirite article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | It is requested that an image or photograph be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific
media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
My reason for suggesting the addition of this section is particularly with Samson in mind, as his superhuman strength was dependent on upholding his Nazirite vow, the Nazirite vow is a key component of his character/story. I believe this could be a valuable addition to the article. 2601:1C0:6D02:3C10:40A1:D6AB:F929:EFD2 ( talk) 04:41, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
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 following was inserted:
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)
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 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)
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)
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!
I checked out 34b and many folios following and I didn't see any discussion on the issue.
If you happen to find the reference please share it.
But regardless to the statement being in the Talmud or not I think the best way to deal with this issue is to include both interpretations. So we should state that according to Rabbinical interpretation a Nazarite is not forbidden to comsume non-wine alcohol, but according to non-Rabbinical interpretation (such as Karaite and various Christian interpretation) a Nazarite is forbidden to consume any alcohol regardless of its source. This will keep the article free of bias.
Brak 16:41, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
I found a recent change: Many later opinions comprise these views and explain that a nazirite is both good and bad had been changed to Many later opinions compromise between. Although I am not 100% sure either fit, comprise definately fits better, I also took out the word between, thinking this change makes more sense. however if anybody has a better understanding of the concept/word then please change it to something better! Soulnebula 02:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
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:
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)
I removed the phrase
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
Leviticus (10:8) reads:
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
In conclusion this statement relates to obscure Halacha exegesis and doesn't belong here Jon513 12:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
"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)
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.
-- Jon513 11:12, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
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)
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:
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)
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
I honestly can't understand why you find it so difficult to realise that the Israelites were not just Jews. Jews are from the tribe of Judah. (check when the word Jew was even mentioned for the first time) Question: How many tribes are there? Please read again 1st Kings 11 onwards... ask yourself these questions... Am I aware of the split in the book of Kings? Do I know the difference between Jeroboam with the House of Israel in Samaria and Judah under Rehoboam in Jerusalem? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.112.11.23 ( talk) 21:23, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Now was Samson a Jew? No he was from Dan. Was he a Nazirite? Yes... so HOW can Nazirite apply only to Jews? It applies to the House of Israel as it says in Numbers when God tells Moses to speak to the House Of Israel. Please stop changing my edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.112.11.23 ( talk) 21:27, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
user:SpaceFalcon2001 changed the links on Nazirite from {{bibleverse}} to a dirrect link to a chabad website. I think this is a mistake.
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
Yeah look guys to tell you the truth, the bit about finishing the vow in a temple, not true, the vow is to be completed "at the front of the tent" it's always helpful to read the bible before actually making statements, thankyou. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.168.205.15 ( talk) 09:58, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
I think as it stands now it is fairly well documented, so I have removed the OR tag. If there are objections could editors mark where further references are needed using Template:cn? 64.149.82.81 05:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
The Hebrew word used for Christian is Notzri, Notzrim, Notzroot (the TZ being Sadhe), and the word means Watchman, Guardian, Overseer.
The Hebrew word for Nazarite uses the Hebrew letter zayin and has the meaning of one seperated out from.
Hence all Nazoreans (Notzrim) were Nazarites (Nazarim), but not all Nazarites were Nazoreans.
All Jewish sects like to play on words and had they're own standards of how these word plays would manifest...some used phonetics, others used Gematria, some ussed both. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.203.219.237 ( talk) 18:30, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I have removed the following (posted by an IP address):
As it lacks content and sources. Jon513 17:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
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)
hi Levush ( talk · contribs), (I assume you are also 84.56.212.160) wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a Torah blog. I understand that it is important that people do not accidentally make a vow to be a nazir, but the tone you are using is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. you would not expect Britannica to have
and neither should wikipedia. Jon513 22:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
So let me get this straight: A person can become "holy unto the Lord" if he/she follows the Nazi rite? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.167.226.70 ( talk) 11:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
72.229.44.16 ( talk · contribs) placed the following message at the beginning of the section "Nazirites in the New Testament"
I replaced the message with a {{ disputed-section}} and copied the arguments here to facilitate further discussion. Jon513 ( talk) 21:59, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
~luqman~
how can you edit it from the page when this last reply did not make one quote or reference? its all opinion until he shows a reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.26.255.113 ( talk) 02:16, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
In the summary it says animals must be sacrificed, but this is biased, and later the article only says there might have to be sacrifices. It is biased because it excludes Nazir- Essene/ Nasoraean/ Nazarene/ Nazoraean, who are against killing animals. Some entire Judaist-Nazarean sects were Nazars, and while the words have different original meanings, they have mostly the same definitions. There is record Nazareans, or at least similar Nazars, have been around since Exodus, and I think this article is biased towards later sects.-- Dchmelik ( talk) 03:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Although the nazirite vow is part of the Jewish tradition, and is basically a Jewish phenomenon, it has been influential on other modern religions, particularly Rastafari. Therefore, it is appropriate that this should be mentioned in the article.
I've restored the section on the Rastafari movement, which was mysteriously and anonymously removed without comment last October: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Nazirite&diff=prev&oldid=165598304
However, I've also edited the text, hopefully making it quite clear and uncontroversial that the Rastafari and Jewish traditions are distinct, with different interpretations, and that the nazirite vow of Samson is described basically as an inspiration for modern Rastafari.
By the way, I've noticed some inconsistency within this article regarding capitalization. In some parts of the History section, "Nazirite" is capitalized, though in most of the article it is not. What is correct here? zadignose ( talk) 00:15, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Leviticus 21:5 "They shall not make baldness upon their head, neither shall they shave off the corner of their beard nor make any cuttings in their flesh." in the Bible refers to
Kohanim/Priests (scroll back to
Leviticus 21:1) (and coincidentally, ALL Jews have the same restrictions
Leviticus 19:27–28).
These verses should in no way be relevant to Nazirite.
KLdd15 (
talk) 15:17, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
In regards to capitalization, the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia, 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia and the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica all capitalize "Nazirite" but I do not know why. Perhaps they view a Nazirite as an important religious figure which is capitalized see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters)#Religions, deities, philosophies, doctrines and their adherents. Nevertheless I think it should not be capitalized. Jon513 ( talk) 09:01, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
I wonder if the name of Nazareth has anythign to do with Nazirites. If so, calling Jesus a "Nazarene" would boil down to the same basic etymology, although it would still not be known whether he was a Nazirite or came from Nazareth. (And since he went around handling wine anyway ("This is my blood..."), according to the Christian Bible, he apparently wasn't all that orthodox a Nazirite if he was, indeed, a Nazirite. 204.52.215.107 ( talk) 03:59, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
A Response to UTC: NAZARETH (HEBREW natsoret -- root nun-tsade-resh) is not related to Nazirite (Hebrew nazir, root nun-zayon-resh). They are entirely different roots. Thus the article appears misguided in making this connection that works in English but is impossible in Hebrew. Matthew makes a word-play "He shall be called a Nazarene" (end of Matthew 2) based on Isaiah 11:1-2. The messianic decendant of Jesse is called a "branch" (Hebrew netser). Matthew sees this as fulled in Jesus in the following way: How appropriate that the one whose title it Branch (natser) comes from Nazareth (Hebrew natsoreth, meaning "a sprouting"). Nazarene simply means from Nazareth. It has nothing to do with Nazirites. JMS 26 May 2009. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
66.173.69.250 (
talk) 16:39, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
A paragraph-long alternative exegesis regarding a kind of "nazareth-nazarite confusion" is given in this article without any source. I'm removing it as Original Synthesis/Research until sources are provided. Here is the text:
NJMauthor ( talk) 20:30, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Why did anyone become a nazirite? Increased charisma or magical powers? Rursus dixit. ( mbork3!) 09:48, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
i noticed that this whole articles bares some similarties with the article "hermit". since i don't think im knoledgeble enough to make any changes i'll only make a segestion: make some link or mention of "hermit" on this page. even if there isn't any connection, or atleast enough diffrences, just mentioning that "hermit" is somthing else would be very nice.
An editor keeps restoring information that is irrelevant to this article, is unsourced editorializing, and only has one reference, a YouTube video. Please stop adding this or risk being blocked. Please explain why this should be in the article. -- Brangifer ( talk) 04:26, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
The title should be changed for several reasons:
1. The English word is normally and most commonly spelled "Nazarite". Just do a Google search. (I suspect that many of the existing spellings as "Nazirite" are because of this article, yet it is still a minority spelling.)
2. The Jewish Encyclopedia supports this spelling.
3. The Catholic Encyclopedia supports this spelling.
4. English Bible translations use this spelling, and since this is the English Wikipedia (not Hebrew), we follow the most common English spelling.
Please discuss for and against this proposal. What say ye? -- Brangifer ( talk) 05:39, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Anybody notice that the story cited in the section "Attitudes toward Nazirites":
Simeon the Just (a High Priest) was opposed to the nazirite vow and ate of the sacrifice offered by a nazirite on only a single occasion. Once a youth with flowing hair came to him and wished to have his head shorn. When asked his motive, the youth replied that he had seen his own face reflected in a spring and it had pleased him so that he feared lest his beauty might become an idol to him. He therefore wished to offer up his hair to God, and Simeon then partook of the sin-offering which he brought. [1]
Is vaguely reminiscent of the story of Narcissus? Nzk10 ( talk) 03:48, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
References
The article says "There are three types of nazarite" but in the very next sentence, it says "there are only two, and not three, types of nazirite". The article seems to disagree with itself? Grand Dizzy ( talk) 17:52, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
I have removed an explicit name use, as this was based on a primary source and the vast majority of secondary sources (or bible translations for that matter - including the link used which has "the LORD" - Numbers 6:8) do not use the explicit name. If you contest this - please demonstrate using secondary sources discussing this topic that this term is used. Icewhiz ( talk) 07:34, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Nazirite article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | It is requested that an image or photograph be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific
media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
My reason for suggesting the addition of this section is particularly with Samson in mind, as his superhuman strength was dependent on upholding his Nazirite vow, the Nazirite vow is a key component of his character/story. I believe this could be a valuable addition to the article. 2601:1C0:6D02:3C10:40A1:D6AB:F929:EFD2 ( talk) 04:41, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
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 following was inserted:
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)
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 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)
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)
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!
I checked out 34b and many folios following and I didn't see any discussion on the issue.
If you happen to find the reference please share it.
But regardless to the statement being in the Talmud or not I think the best way to deal with this issue is to include both interpretations. So we should state that according to Rabbinical interpretation a Nazarite is not forbidden to comsume non-wine alcohol, but according to non-Rabbinical interpretation (such as Karaite and various Christian interpretation) a Nazarite is forbidden to consume any alcohol regardless of its source. This will keep the article free of bias.
Brak 16:41, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
I found a recent change: Many later opinions comprise these views and explain that a nazirite is both good and bad had been changed to Many later opinions compromise between. Although I am not 100% sure either fit, comprise definately fits better, I also took out the word between, thinking this change makes more sense. however if anybody has a better understanding of the concept/word then please change it to something better! Soulnebula 02:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
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:
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)
I removed the phrase
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
Leviticus (10:8) reads:
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
In conclusion this statement relates to obscure Halacha exegesis and doesn't belong here Jon513 12:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
"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)
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.
-- Jon513 11:12, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
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)
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:
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)
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
I honestly can't understand why you find it so difficult to realise that the Israelites were not just Jews. Jews are from the tribe of Judah. (check when the word Jew was even mentioned for the first time) Question: How many tribes are there? Please read again 1st Kings 11 onwards... ask yourself these questions... Am I aware of the split in the book of Kings? Do I know the difference between Jeroboam with the House of Israel in Samaria and Judah under Rehoboam in Jerusalem? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.112.11.23 ( talk) 21:23, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Now was Samson a Jew? No he was from Dan. Was he a Nazirite? Yes... so HOW can Nazirite apply only to Jews? It applies to the House of Israel as it says in Numbers when God tells Moses to speak to the House Of Israel. Please stop changing my edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.112.11.23 ( talk) 21:27, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
user:SpaceFalcon2001 changed the links on Nazirite from {{bibleverse}} to a dirrect link to a chabad website. I think this is a mistake.
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
Yeah look guys to tell you the truth, the bit about finishing the vow in a temple, not true, the vow is to be completed "at the front of the tent" it's always helpful to read the bible before actually making statements, thankyou. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.168.205.15 ( talk) 09:58, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
I think as it stands now it is fairly well documented, so I have removed the OR tag. If there are objections could editors mark where further references are needed using Template:cn? 64.149.82.81 05:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
The Hebrew word used for Christian is Notzri, Notzrim, Notzroot (the TZ being Sadhe), and the word means Watchman, Guardian, Overseer.
The Hebrew word for Nazarite uses the Hebrew letter zayin and has the meaning of one seperated out from.
Hence all Nazoreans (Notzrim) were Nazarites (Nazarim), but not all Nazarites were Nazoreans.
All Jewish sects like to play on words and had they're own standards of how these word plays would manifest...some used phonetics, others used Gematria, some ussed both. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.203.219.237 ( talk) 18:30, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I have removed the following (posted by an IP address):
As it lacks content and sources. Jon513 17:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
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)
hi Levush ( talk · contribs), (I assume you are also 84.56.212.160) wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a Torah blog. I understand that it is important that people do not accidentally make a vow to be a nazir, but the tone you are using is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. you would not expect Britannica to have
and neither should wikipedia. Jon513 22:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
So let me get this straight: A person can become "holy unto the Lord" if he/she follows the Nazi rite? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.167.226.70 ( talk) 11:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
72.229.44.16 ( talk · contribs) placed the following message at the beginning of the section "Nazirites in the New Testament"
I replaced the message with a {{ disputed-section}} and copied the arguments here to facilitate further discussion. Jon513 ( talk) 21:59, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
~luqman~
how can you edit it from the page when this last reply did not make one quote or reference? its all opinion until he shows a reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.26.255.113 ( talk) 02:16, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
In the summary it says animals must be sacrificed, but this is biased, and later the article only says there might have to be sacrifices. It is biased because it excludes Nazir- Essene/ Nasoraean/ Nazarene/ Nazoraean, who are against killing animals. Some entire Judaist-Nazarean sects were Nazars, and while the words have different original meanings, they have mostly the same definitions. There is record Nazareans, or at least similar Nazars, have been around since Exodus, and I think this article is biased towards later sects.-- Dchmelik ( talk) 03:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Although the nazirite vow is part of the Jewish tradition, and is basically a Jewish phenomenon, it has been influential on other modern religions, particularly Rastafari. Therefore, it is appropriate that this should be mentioned in the article.
I've restored the section on the Rastafari movement, which was mysteriously and anonymously removed without comment last October: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Nazirite&diff=prev&oldid=165598304
However, I've also edited the text, hopefully making it quite clear and uncontroversial that the Rastafari and Jewish traditions are distinct, with different interpretations, and that the nazirite vow of Samson is described basically as an inspiration for modern Rastafari.
By the way, I've noticed some inconsistency within this article regarding capitalization. In some parts of the History section, "Nazirite" is capitalized, though in most of the article it is not. What is correct here? zadignose ( talk) 00:15, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Leviticus 21:5 "They shall not make baldness upon their head, neither shall they shave off the corner of their beard nor make any cuttings in their flesh." in the Bible refers to
Kohanim/Priests (scroll back to
Leviticus 21:1) (and coincidentally, ALL Jews have the same restrictions
Leviticus 19:27–28).
These verses should in no way be relevant to Nazirite.
KLdd15 (
talk) 15:17, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
In regards to capitalization, the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia, 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia and the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica all capitalize "Nazirite" but I do not know why. Perhaps they view a Nazirite as an important religious figure which is capitalized see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters)#Religions, deities, philosophies, doctrines and their adherents. Nevertheless I think it should not be capitalized. Jon513 ( talk) 09:01, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
I wonder if the name of Nazareth has anythign to do with Nazirites. If so, calling Jesus a "Nazarene" would boil down to the same basic etymology, although it would still not be known whether he was a Nazirite or came from Nazareth. (And since he went around handling wine anyway ("This is my blood..."), according to the Christian Bible, he apparently wasn't all that orthodox a Nazirite if he was, indeed, a Nazirite. 204.52.215.107 ( talk) 03:59, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
A Response to UTC: NAZARETH (HEBREW natsoret -- root nun-tsade-resh) is not related to Nazirite (Hebrew nazir, root nun-zayon-resh). They are entirely different roots. Thus the article appears misguided in making this connection that works in English but is impossible in Hebrew. Matthew makes a word-play "He shall be called a Nazarene" (end of Matthew 2) based on Isaiah 11:1-2. The messianic decendant of Jesse is called a "branch" (Hebrew netser). Matthew sees this as fulled in Jesus in the following way: How appropriate that the one whose title it Branch (natser) comes from Nazareth (Hebrew natsoreth, meaning "a sprouting"). Nazarene simply means from Nazareth. It has nothing to do with Nazirites. JMS 26 May 2009. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
66.173.69.250 (
talk) 16:39, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
A paragraph-long alternative exegesis regarding a kind of "nazareth-nazarite confusion" is given in this article without any source. I'm removing it as Original Synthesis/Research until sources are provided. Here is the text:
NJMauthor ( talk) 20:30, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Why did anyone become a nazirite? Increased charisma or magical powers? Rursus dixit. ( mbork3!) 09:48, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
i noticed that this whole articles bares some similarties with the article "hermit". since i don't think im knoledgeble enough to make any changes i'll only make a segestion: make some link or mention of "hermit" on this page. even if there isn't any connection, or atleast enough diffrences, just mentioning that "hermit" is somthing else would be very nice.
An editor keeps restoring information that is irrelevant to this article, is unsourced editorializing, and only has one reference, a YouTube video. Please stop adding this or risk being blocked. Please explain why this should be in the article. -- Brangifer ( talk) 04:26, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
The title should be changed for several reasons:
1. The English word is normally and most commonly spelled "Nazarite". Just do a Google search. (I suspect that many of the existing spellings as "Nazirite" are because of this article, yet it is still a minority spelling.)
2. The Jewish Encyclopedia supports this spelling.
3. The Catholic Encyclopedia supports this spelling.
4. English Bible translations use this spelling, and since this is the English Wikipedia (not Hebrew), we follow the most common English spelling.
Please discuss for and against this proposal. What say ye? -- Brangifer ( talk) 05:39, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Anybody notice that the story cited in the section "Attitudes toward Nazirites":
Simeon the Just (a High Priest) was opposed to the nazirite vow and ate of the sacrifice offered by a nazirite on only a single occasion. Once a youth with flowing hair came to him and wished to have his head shorn. When asked his motive, the youth replied that he had seen his own face reflected in a spring and it had pleased him so that he feared lest his beauty might become an idol to him. He therefore wished to offer up his hair to God, and Simeon then partook of the sin-offering which he brought. [1]
Is vaguely reminiscent of the story of Narcissus? Nzk10 ( talk) 03:48, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
References
The article says "There are three types of nazarite" but in the very next sentence, it says "there are only two, and not three, types of nazirite". The article seems to disagree with itself? Grand Dizzy ( talk) 17:52, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
I have removed an explicit name use, as this was based on a primary source and the vast majority of secondary sources (or bible translations for that matter - including the link used which has "the LORD" - Numbers 6:8) do not use the explicit name. If you contest this - please demonstrate using secondary sources discussing this topic that this term is used. Icewhiz ( talk) 07:34, 24 August 2019 (UTC)