Let's take a look at the Ramban here at the beginning of Parshas Ki Sisa, posuk yud gimmel, מחצית השקל בשקל הקודש. קבע לו משה רבינו מטבע כסף בישראל כי מלך גדול היה.
What does that mean? Moshe Rabbeinu established silver currency. כי מלך גדול היה. So the definition of let's see in Halacha in so many contexts we talk about kesef, we talk about shaveh kesef. So because the original money was silver, so the word kesef means both, right? It means silver and it means money. But in context of Halacha when we talk about kesef and shaveh kesef referring to money, we're referring to either its money or its something which is shaveh kesef, which is worth money. So what what I don't know what makes a silver coin money and I don't know what makes a desk shaveh kesef. Maybe it's a little bit difficult to fit into your wallet but okay we'll deal with that logistical problem. Maybe the desk is money and the silver coin is shaveh kesef. So whatever the whatever the malchus establishes is something which is recognized as currency has a din of kesef. Has a din of kesef. Right? Kings would mint coins. Right? That's why you find that the Gemara in Bava Kama will talk about when you'd have a new king so then the king would sometimes you know same way whenever there's a new mayor, so whatever the mayor's name is, so they spend who knows how many tens of thousands of dollars getting rid of the old signs and putting the new mayor, the new governor, the new Bronx, the new borough president's name on it. So kings would mint their own coins because coinage was an expression of malchus. That's what the Ramban is saying. Since Moshe Rabbeinu was a melech, so mimaila it was Moshe Rabbeinu had the ability to establish currency. A currency. קבע לו משה רבינו מטבע כסף בישראל כי מלך גדול היה וקבע המטבע ההוא שקל בעבור שכל המטבע במשקל שלם אין בו פחת ולא כסף סיגים.
Because it's a pure weight in the sense that that it was pure silver that the currency that he established was some which was going to be a pure weight. So that's why it's called a shekel. Okay so that's that's the lashon shekel. What does it mean b'shekel hakodesh? ובעבור שמשקלי הערכין ופדיון הבכורות. במטבע ההוא שהם קודש. If you do a pidyon habechor, so it’s measured in units of sh’kalim. When a person says erko alai where the Torah has depending upon age and gender a fixed amount of what that neder represents, again, it’s also in units of sh’kalim. So heyos that this and these are mitzvos hatorah, right? So mitzvos hatorah are expressed and defined in terms of these sh’kalim. מצוות התורה שהם קודש are expressed in terms of these sh’kalim. ולכן כל שקלי המשכן וכל כסף הקצוב והאמור בתורה יקרא לו הכתוב שקל הקודש.
Ich veis the knas of shloshim of eved, so many dinei hatorah are defined in terms of these sh’kalim. So that’s why it’s referred to, it’s the shekel of kedusha, it’s the shekel in which kedusha, with which kedusha operates, through which mitzvos hatorah which are kodesh are expressed and defined. So that’s why the sh’kalim are called shekel hakodesh. v'chein hataam etzli says the Ramban. That’s why I think במה שרבותינו קוראים לשון התורה לשון הקודש. The fact that we refer to the Hebrew of the Torah as Lashon Hakodesh is the same idea as shekel hakodesh. שהוא מפני שדברי התורה והנבואות וכל דברי הקדושה כולם בלשון ההוא נאמרו.
Just as shekel hakodesh, the peshat is it’s the shekel which is the instrument of kedusha, so too Lashon Hakodesh is the lashon, is the language which is the instrument of kedusha. What does it mean that it’s the instrument of kedusha? שדברי התורה והנבואות וכל דברי הקדושה כולם בלשון ההוא נאמרו. והנה הוא הלשון שהקדוש ברוך הוא יתעלה שמו מדבר בו עם נביאיו ועם עדתו.
That’s the way Hakadosh Baruch Hu communicates with us. He communicates with us in this language. Again, so this is the language which is the instrument of kedusha, hence its description as Lashon Hakodesh. אנכי ולא יהיה ושאר דברי התורה והנבואה ובו נקרא בשמותיו הקדושים.
And the שבעה שמות שאינם נמחקים are all part of this language: Kel, Elohim, Tzvaos, Shakkai, and v'Yud Kay, and v'haShem hagadol hamiyuchad. u'vo bara olamo. Right, בעשרה מאמרות נברא העולם. So the maamar was yehi or. Right, the maamar wasn’t let there be light, the maamar was yehi or. וקרא שמות שמים ארץ וכל אשר בם ומלאכיו וכל צבאו כולם בשם יקרא מיכאל וגבריאל בלשון ההוא. ובו קרא שמות לקדושים אשר בארץ.
When Hakadosh Baruch Hu gave names to the avos, right, לא יקרא שמך אברם כי אם אברהם וקראת את שמו יצחק.
So Hakadosh Baruch Hu again, these are names from this lashon. So again, it’s the lashon which is the instrument of kedusha, hence Lashon Hakodesh. אברהם יצחק ויעקב ושלמה וזולתם. v'hataam, this reason of the Ramban is in contradistinction to what the Rambam says. והרב אמר במורה הנבוכים אל תחשוב שנקרא לשוננו לשון הקודש ל
aval hu b'din, it's an appropriate, again, description of the language, כי זאת הלשון קדושה. It's a holy language. לא ימצאו בו שמות לאבר הבעילה בזכר ובנקבה. There are no explicit terms for the reproductive organs, neither that of a male nor that of a female. Similarly, ולא לטיפה ולא לשתן ולא לצואה רק בכינוי. The words describing human excrement are also—there are not direct, explicit terms. It's all sort of with speaking somewhat figuratively, right? We speak of mei raglayim. So that's a figurative term, right? It's a figurative term. It's not an explicit term. It's rather something which is figurative. v'alyata oscha shagel, or v'alyata, excuse me, v'alyata oscha shagel. Right? We find in Tehillim, amongst other places, the word shagel, כי הוא שם האשה המזומנת למשכב ואמר ישגלנה על פי מה שנכתב בו ופירושו ייקח אשה לפילגש.
So the Rambam says that shagel also is figurative. It also—there is no explicit term. The same way—the same way to—if one says that a man and woman lie together, so that's also figurative in terms of describing tashmish. So lashon shagel is the same—is basically it means mishkav. So it also has that indirectness. So there's no direct, explicit vocabulary either—either for intimacy or for—or for human waste. והנה איני צריך לטעם הזה. So first of all, the Ramban thinks that... what is the Rambam sort of looking for an explanation? I think my explanation, the Ramban says, כי הדבר ברור שהלשון קודש קדשים הוא כמו שפירשתי. I think my explanation is just more—makes more sense. It's more compelling. Again, it's the lashon which is the instrument of kedusha with which kedusha operates. It's the lashon of kedusha, hence lashon hakodesh. Then the Ramban disagrees just in terms of semantics and etymology. He disagrees with the Rambam's interpretation of the word shagel, והטעם שהזכיר על דעתי איננו אמת כי מה שכינו ישגלנה ישכבנה.
Right? In Parshas Ki Savo, the ksiv is yishgalena. And the krie is yishkavena. So the Ramban thinks that the pshat in that krie u'ksiv is that יורה כי משכב שם עצם לבעילה. No, he thinks that that—the fact that there's a krie u'ksiv is gufe because the ksiv is an explicit—an explicit description. Okay, the Rambam thinks not. ואם מפני טעמו של הרב, for the Rambam's reason, היו קוראים לו לשון נקייה. And what's more, the Rambam doesn't—it doesn't tally, because the Rambam's observation, even if we'll grant it, which the Ramban doesn't, right? That's the previous hasaga. But he says even if we'll grant the Rambam's hasaga—the Rambam's he'ara—that of the lack of any explicit vocabulary, so היו קוראים לו. lashon nekiya. That if you want to highlight that dimension, so you wouldn't refer to that as lashon hakodesh, you'd refer to it as lashon nekiya, refined the speech. You wouldn't, it's a refined language. You wouldn't call it a holy language, you'd call it that a person who speaks that way that his speech is refined, lashon nekiya. ואם מפני טעמו של הרב היה קורא לו לשון נקייה
ke'inyan sheshoninu and this is a phrase that Chazal do employ. Ve'omru ke'inyan sheshoninu עד שיעקב זקן התחתון ולא העליון אלא שדברו חכמים בלשון נקייה
when talking about simanim for gadlus, so Chazal comment that it was expressed belashon nekiya. Again, and here lashon nekiya means is that it was expressed figuratively, not with explicit leshonos as you have in other languages. But the way Chazal sort of complement that is by describing it not as lashon hakodesh but as lashon nekiya. That's the Ramban's hassaga and he gives another example of that, that Chazal also say that when Yosef says to Eshes Potifar that כי אם הלחם אשר הוא אוכל that it means lashon naki and that he's not referring to bread. Vechein bimkomos rabbim. Okay. So what's the teretz on this again, so in terms of what the word shogal means? Okay, so it's a machlokes in Targum in what the word means. מר דא ומר דא ופליגי so there's no, it's not really, it's a disagreement, it's not really a hassaga. But the part about lashon nekiya lekhora is a hassaga, right? That's not just a disagreement, that's a hassaga. So what's the Rambam going to say about that? That look again, it's sort of a double hassaga. Number one, again, shouldn't that quality of the language that the Rambam's referring to, shouldn't you refer to that as lashon nekiya? And number two, don't Chazal in fact use that phrase when that's what they're talking about? And they don't say in the Gemara in Sanhedrin about when it's talking about simanim or the Midrash about with Yosef and Eshes Potifar, so Chazal takka don't say in that context אלא שדברו בלשון הקודש. So that's first al rishon rishon אם ירצה השם בלי נדר and al sheni sheni. The Rambam has his hakdama. So first he has his hakdama about the history of the massora of Torah Sheba'al Peh, then which provides context for Mishneh Torah. Then he has the listing of the Taryag Mitzvos. Then the Rambam introduces us to what the 14 sefarim of the Yad HaChazaka are, the names of each and what the subject matter of each of the 14 sefarim of the Yad HaChazaka is. So the Rambam says Sefer Chamishi, the fifth of the Yud-Dalet sfarim, again if you have it you can take a look, it's in the hakdama to the Yad. ספר חמישי אכלול בו מצוה של ביאות אסורות ומצוה של מאכלות אסורות. לפי שבשני עניינים האלו קדשנו המקום והבדילנו מן האומות בעריות ובמאכלות אסורות. ובשניהם נאמר ואבדיל אתכם מן העמים אשר הבדלתי אתכם מן העמים. וקראתי שם ספר זה ספר קדושה.
So the Rambam says לפי שבשני עניינים האלו קדשנו המקום והבדילנו מן האומות. Ha-Kadosh Barukh Hu consecrated us in the two realms of Biyas Assuros and Ma'achalos Assuros. What does the Rambam mean? I mean we say אשר קדשנו במצותיו וצונו before every mitzvah, right? Ha-Kadosh Barukh Hu is mekadesh us with taryag mitzvos. So so what does the Rambam mean that לפי שבשני עניינים האלו קדשנו המקום והבדילנו מן האומות? So likhora what the Rambam means is as follows. Of course, ain hachi nami, אשר קדשנו במצותיו וצונו with all mitzvos, as the Rambam in Sefer Hamitzvos quotes, he says that Kedoshim Tiyu is not a separate mitzvah because Kedoshim Tiyu just means היה קדוש בהיותך עוסק בכל מה שצויתיך בו והשמר מכל מה שהזהרתיך ממנו.
Kedusha is through mitzvos. And in Mechilta amru ואנשי קדש תהיון לי, this is the Rambam in shoresh revi'i in Sefer Hamitzvos, איסי בן יהודה אומר כשהקדוש ברוך הוא מחדש מצוה לישראל הוא מוסיף להם קדושה.
So that's true but all of that notwithstanding what the Rambam is telling us is let's say you have a building so the building can have nafish, it can have 600 stories, but but part of the building is its foundation and the rest of it is what's built upon the foundation and what the Rambam is saying is the self-discipline that the Torah demands of us is what's foundational to kedushas Yisrael. And the rest of kedushas Yisrael builds on that foundation. So that's why on the one hand of course it is true אשר קדשנו במצותיו וצונו is true uniformly about all mitzvos, but m'eider gisa the Rambam says לפי שבשני עניינים האלו קדשנו המקום והבדילנו מן האומות. So bekitzur hanogea le'inyaneinu that that a person's behavior, a person's attitude towards and again clearly this is true because again it's the most potentially the most animalistic behaviors that that a person can engage in. So therefore it's davka these which are foundational within kedusha. Again all mitzvos are an expression of kedusha but again the story number 20 is part of the building also, the first floor is part of the building also, but there's a difference between what constitutes the foundation of the building and everything that's built on that foundation. So likhora the answer to the Ramban's first hasaga is ain hachi nami you could have called it lashon nekiya but chazal are telling us more. They're telling us that it's not only a question of refinement but but a person's behavior, demeanor, again ad kedei kach not only to what he does but the way he speaks about these inyanim is a source of kedusha. Meaning ain hachi nami is the description lashon nekiya apt? Of course it's apt. But Lashon Ha-Kodesh tells you more. Lashon Ha-Kodesh tells you the significance and the importance and and how foundational it is in in a way that's not captured by the phrase lashon nekiya. So that likhora is the Rambam's answer to the first question of the Ramban. But what about the second question, but don't we see that chazal themselves say אלא שדברו חכמים בלשון נקיה in those two instances? So the vort likhora is as follows. Let's say that let's say you overhear a person one time, one time you overhear how he's conversing. And you don't, you don't know anything, you don't really know anything about him. This is just one snapshot. You overhear him once. So what you can say based on overhearing one conversation is, when I heard him, he was speaking in a very refined manner. One instance doesn't yield keddusha. If it's done consistently, it yields keddusha. So one instance, if you're describing one phrase in Chazal, if you're commenting on one phrase in the Chumash that Yosef Hatzaddik uses, and you're isolating that one, no, that's not keddusha. Keddusha implies a consistency. So when you're reflecting on the entire language, not on one expression, not on a one-time expression in the Gemara in Sanhedrin, not a one-time statement of Yosef Hatzaddik, the only thing you can say is lashon nakiya. Yes, that's a very refined phrase. But when you're talking about consistency, let's say if you'll then monitor Yosef Hatzaddik and you'll hear everything he says, you won't just get one excerpt of one sentence, so then you'll be able to say, the way he speaks, he speaks in a holy fashion because keddusha implies the consistency. That is a result of a consistent way of speech, way of behavior, etc. Lechora, that's how the Rambam will respond to this Ramban. Parenthetically, the Ramban here seems to be taking a position on a, I guess maybe a little bit we can argue about it, but I don't know, it does seem that way. Again, when the Ramban is explaining, again, his understanding of Lashon Hakodesh, again, it's the lashon in which keddusha operates. It's the lashon which is the instrument of keddusha. So the Ramban says שהוא וכן הטעם אצלי במה שרבותינו קוראים לשון התורה לשון הקודש. שהוא מפני שדברי התורה והנבואות וכל דברי קדושה כולם בלשון ההוא נאמרו.
So all nevo'os were said in this lashon. And then the Ramban says והנה הוא הלשון שהקדוש ברוך הוא יתעלה שמו מדבר עם נביאיו ועם עדתו.
This is the language with which Hakadosh Baruch Hu, in which Hakadosh Baruch Hu speaks, communicates with a navi. So kemidomeh, I think there is a very basic question. Las man dephalig, the Gemara in Bava Batra describes that Moshe Rabbeinu was given Chamesha Chumshei Torah verbatim. Hakadosh Baruch Hu dictated to Moshe Rabbeinu from Bereishis until einei kol Yisrael. And Moshe Rabbeinu is depicted as a sofer, as a scribe taking dictations. הקדוש ברוך הוא אומר והוא כותב. Hakadosh Baruch Hu tells him בראשית ברא אלהים את השמים ואת הארץ. Moshe Rabbeinu writes בראשית ברא אלהים את השמים ואת הארץ. And Hakadosh Baruch Hu indicates to him chaseras ve'yeseras, etc. The question is what about the words of nevi'im? So here there is a basic shaila. Las man dephalig, the shaila is like this: is Nach also verbatim Devar Hashem or no? Here's the mashal. Let's say you have an artist paints a picture. Paints a magnificent picture. And then an art critic writes an essay in which he presents in words what, to his... understanding the picture, which is a non-verbal medium, right, what the picture expresses. And then he finishes writing, then they go back to the artist and they show him what the art critic wrote and they ask him, what do you think of it? And he says, incredible. He says, he captured everything I wanted to say. He didn't miss anything. He captured everything I was looking to express, didn't miss anything, and he didn't add anything. He didn't insert anything that I wasn't. This is 100% expresses verbally what I expressed through a non-verbal medium. So the shaila is, maybe again, there's no question of chamisha chumshei torah. Chamisha chumshei torah is verbatim dvar hashem. The question is about nach. Is nach also verbatim dvar hashem? Or no, or nevuah is a non-verbal medium, whatever it is, some the nefesh, whatever, it's a non-verbal medium. And then the navi is able with a 100% accuracy, that's part of the experience of nevuah, is that with a 100% accuracy he understands and then expresses the nevuah in words. But the words are not given to him. Again, the words are 100% accurate, again, see the moshal of the art critic, right, the words are 100% accurate לא חסר ולא הוסף in terms of what was expressed through the non-verbal medium of nevuah, but the words are his. So this is a big machlokes. So the Abarbanel and the Malbim each talk about this in their hakdomos to sefer yirmeyahu. And the Abarbanel thinks that with the moshal with the art critic, and the Malbim says he thinks that's wrong and says no, that all nevuah is verbatim dvar hashem. And then fast-forwarding over another hundred years, Rav Yaakov Kamenetsky has in his hakdoma to emes l'yaakov, he sides with the Abarbanel and he thinks that's the pshat that אין שני נביאים מתנבאים בסגנון אחד. How is it that no two neviim will ever express themselves identically? So he says the same way if two people have to write an essay, unless there's cheating going on, there's no way that they're going to generate the identical essay word-for-word. I mean, not chas v'sholom that they plagiarize, but there might be duplicative language, you know, but not chas v'sholom that there's any plagiarism. So that's what Rav Yaakov says is pshat in אין שני נביאים מתנבאים בסגנון אחד that it means that the navi, again the nimshal to the moshal with the art critic. How is that relevant here? So l'chora, I don't know if you say like the Abarbanel, like Rav Yaakov Kamenetsky, so hakadosh baruch hu doesn't really speak other than moshe rabbeinu, he doesn't really speak to neviim, right, the communication is non-verbal. So I don't know, does it really happen in any language? If you say like the Malbim that all nevuah is verbatim, ויהי אחרי מות משה עבד ה', those words with which sefer yehoshua begins, so Yehoshua got those words from hakadosh baruch hu b'nevuah, that that's the way sefer yehoshua is supposed to be written, that comes directly from hakadosh baruch hu. Okay, so then hakadosh baruch hu is it's a verbal communication. But if you say like the other view in the chachmei yisrael, no, the chamisha chumshei torah is verbatim, but the rest of nevuah is non-verbal and then the navi again, unerringly, that's part of the madreiga of nevuah that he doesn't make a mistake in understanding and interpreting the nevuah. That's part of the madreiga of what nevuah is. So I'm not sure that you would is it really something that that you can define in terms of of a loshon? So itachen that the Ramban here is is taking a position on on that question which would be I think the Ramban has, in Rav Zelig Epstein zichrono livracha has a vort. So Rav Yaakov says what's is there a nafkamine ledina, I mean obviously it doesn't have to be a nafkamine ledina because conceptually it's just so different. But is there a nafkamine ledina? He says no there's a nafkamine ledina for this also. Nafkamine ledina is as follows. The Magen Avraham says in Shulchan Aruch that there's no mitzvah to say Eizehu Mekoman without understanding what the words mean. To just to just say איזהו מקומן של זבחים without understanding what those words mean is is not a mitzvah. So the Baal HaTanya writes in in his Hilchos Talmud Torah in his Shulchan Aruch, he says bamei devarim amurim, the Magen Avraham said about mishnayos. But Chumash there would be a kiyum hamitzvah. A person is engaged in Talmud Torah if he layens בראשית ברא אלהים את השמים ואת הארץ even if he doesn't understand the words. He's obviously not engaged in Talmud Torah in its highest or most optimal form but but it is it is it is Talmud Torah. Why? What's the pshat? Because Torah Shebal Peh, it's not the words which are Torah, it's the content which is Torah. So איזהו מקומן של זבחים if a person says the mishna but without comprehension, so it's the words, it's the content which is which is which is Torah. Again, חייב אדם לומר בלשון רבו notwithstanding, that's to try to preserve nuance and and subtlety vechulu. But but what's Torah in Torah Shebal Peh is the content, not not the words themselves. Mah she'ein kein Torah Shebichtav, Hakadosh Baruch Hu said Torah Shebichtav is devar Hashem, Hakadosh Baruch Hu said בראשית ברא אלהים את השמים ואת הארץ so so that's Torah. That that's Torah and and it's Torah even if a person doesn't understand it. So the question is what about Nach? That's let's say a person a person says a posuk in Nach, right? We do it with Tehillim all the time unfortunately, right? We say psukim and and we don't know what what they mean. So is there any kiyum Talmud Torah in in so doing? So Rav Yaakov says it should depend upon this question. If Nach is verbatim devar Hashem, so then that means that not only is the content Torah, but the etzem words are Torah as well. Mah she'ein kein, no, if you say like he's inclined to think, which which centuries earlier the Abarbanel said, that the words are the words of Yeshayahu. So then what's devar Hashem is the content. So then then you would compare Nach to to mishna. You wouldn't compare Nach to Chumash. I think the Baal HaTanya himself doesn't I think doesn't indicate anything. I think the Baal HaTanya just contrasts Chumash with with mishnayos and and doesn't comment I think on Nach. Okay, so itachen that there's an indication here as well. Oh, so so Rav Zelig has like this, he has it in in this dvar Torah he writes, I think he points to a Ramban in Sefer Hamitzvos in shoresh sheini. The Ramban says whatever you find in novi which is formulated belashon tzivuy, al korchacha since אין נביא רשאי לחדש דבר, that's a din de'oraisa which is being recorded here in the novi. Aval mah shekosav, if you want to look it up in the Frankel it's on amud peh vav in the Frankel edition, shoresh sheini in the Sefer Hamitzvos, the Ramban. Aval mah shekosav בנבואה בדרך הצואות כגון שמזהירין על ומייסרים על לא תעשה דאורייתא הוא.
How can something in Novi be de'oraisa? והעניין הזה מפני שהוזהרנו בתורה אלו המצוות ולמדת שאין נביא רשאי לחדש דבר מן התורה ידענו כי הבא בנבואה
so if you find something in Novi that you don't have in Chumash, al korcho it was a din de'oraisa, but it hasn't been recorded until now. ידענו כי הבא בנבואה דבר תורה הוא או שהוא פירוש לפסוק של תורה או שהוא בידם הלכה למשה מסיני כמו שאמרו בגמרא תענית עד דאתי יחזקאל מאן אמרה אלא גמרא גמירי לה ואתא יחזקאל ואסמכה אקרא.
Okay, so far that doesn't really have to do with what we're talking about, but stay tuned. ולפיכך חייבו מיתה על פרועי ראש. If a kohen does avoda with when he's parua rosh ומנו אותה מאלו שבמיתה מן הכתוב ביחזקאל ופרע לא ישלחו ויין לא ישתו כל כהן והוקש פרוע ראש לשתויי יין מה שתויי יין במיתה,
just as if the kohen is shesui yayin, חייב מיתה בידי שמיים אף פרוע ראש במיתה. So A, says the Ramban, הנה הם לומדים איסור הפרע מדברי הקבלה, two, ודנים בו היקש כדברי תורה. So the Ramban points out that Chazal are operating with מידות שהתורה נדרשת בהן about a pasuk in Novi. Right? Heikesh is a מידה שהתורה נדרשת בה. And Chazal, meaning Chazal are saying the fact that the pasuk in Yechezkel mentions peru'ei rosh and shesuyei yayin in the same pasuk, so we know, right? That's a מידה שהתורה נדרשת בה. When the Torah has two dinim, two mitzvos in the same pasuk, so that means it implies a heikesh. Otherwise they would have had each one would have been given its own pasuk. הנה הם לומדים איסור הפרע מדברי הקבלה ודנים בו היקש כדברי תורה.
So I think what Rav Zeleznik comments is you can only have מידות שהתורה נדרשת בהן if the assumption is, lichora, if the assumption is that it's verbatim devar Hashem. So that's his he'ora. Okay, ayen lov. So what will the others respond to that? Okay, ayen lov. Good, okay, we'll stop here for the night.