Transcript

Let's see the Ramban here, Perek Yud Gimmel, Pasuk Yud.

ויהי רעב בארץ והנה אברהם ירד למצרים מפני הרעב לגור שם להחיות נפשו בימי הבצורת והמצרים עשקו אותו חינם לקחת את אשתו והקדוש ברוך הוא נקם נקמתם בנגעים גדולים והוציאו משם במקנה בכסף ובזהב. גם ציווה עליו פרעה אנשים לשלחם. ורמז אליו כי בניו ירדו מצרים מפני הרעב לגור שם בארץ והמצרים ירעו להם ויקחו מהם הנשים כאשר אמר וכל הבת תחיון.

And so the Ramban is saying the pshat in vechol habat techayun is not that while since Paroh only felt threatened since his astrologers or whatever they were told him that the Moshiach was going to be a man, so you only felt threatened by the Jewish boys who were being born, he didn't feel threatened by the Jewish girls, he wasn't such a great humanitarian that because of that he would have said vechol habat techayun, it's because he had other nefarious plans for the banos.

והקדוש ברוך הוא ינקום נקמתם בנגעים גדולים עד שיוציאם בכסף ובזהב וצאן ובקר מקנה כבד מאוד והחזיקו בהם לשלחם מן הארץ לא נפל דבר מכל מאורע האב שלא יהיה בבנים.

So the Ramban points out in an extraordinary simanya between the two, between this incident with Avraham Avinu and the way it really aligns with Galus and Yetzias Mitzrayim.

והעניין הזה פירשוהו בבראשית רבה רבי פנחס בשם רבי הושעיא אמר הקדוש ברוך הוא לאברהם צא וכבוש את הדרך לפני בניך ואתה מוצא כל מה שכתוב באברהם כתוב בבנים באברהם כתיב ויהי רעב בארץ בישראל כתיב כי זה שנתיים הרעב בקרב הארץ. ודע כי אברהם אבינו חטא חטא גדול בשגגה שהביא אשתו הצדקת במכשול עוון מפני פחדו פן יהרגוהו. והיה לו לבטוח בהשם שיציל אותו ואת אשתו ואת כל אשר לו כי יש באלוקים כוח לעזור ולהציל גם יציאתו מן הארץ שנצטווה עליה בתחילה מפני הרעב עוון אשר חטא כי האלוקים ברעב יפדנו ממוות ועל המעשה הזה נגזר על זרעו הגלות בארץ מצרים ביד פרעה במקום המשפט שמה הרשע והחטא.

So just in terms of factually, Rashi understands in ויהי רעב בארץ that Avraham Avinu was supposed to leave Eretz Yisrael. And that it was a nisayon that first Hakadosh Baruch Hu uprooted him and brought him to Eretz Yisrael and as soon as he finished unpacking, so right away ויהי רעב בארץ it was time to temporarily relocate again. And the Ramban says no, but we don't find Hakadosh Baruch Hu told him to go to Eretz Yisrael, Hakadosh Baruch Hu never told him to leave Eretz Yisrael, aderaba, Avraham Avinu was not supposed to leave Eretz Yisrael in the face of the ra'av. Why not? I don't know, maybe I don't know, is this, I don't know, היה לו לבטוח בהשם. Maybe we'll come back to that. So this is a staggering comment of the Ramban. I mean the Torah itself is Devarim stumim, whether vayered Avram Mitzraima, whether that was appropriate. But let's talk about that, not the part about Sarai. Let's talk about yetziaso min ha'aretz. And as we just mentioned, and Rashi taka understands that Avraham Avinu was right in what he did. What's the Ramban's- why is the Ramban so convinced that this is the pshat? I mean, to indict Avraham Avinu is not something to do lightly. There's a double indictment here. So where does the Ramban see it? Does he see it telegraphed in the psukim? Is it- that's A. The other question is B. Is there any connection between these two halves of the Ramban? These two comments of the Ramban. The first comment is again the Ramban shows the symmetry between the episode with Avraham Avinu and the later galus and yetzias Mitzrayim. And then now B he talks about the fact that Avraham Avinu exposed Sarah to the spiritual danger that he did, and leaving Eretz Yisrael was a cheit. Is there any continuum in the Ramban or that he has two different comments on this pasuk? He has two comments on this pasuk. So comment number one, comment number two, but each one is self-contained. So yitachen that one question points to the answer to the other question. Yitachen is as follows. In galus Mitzrayim, so lachora galus Mitzrayim was precipitated by cheit. Whether it's the original cheit of the shevatim of וישנאו אתו ולא יכלו דברו לשלום, which is how Yosef ends up in Mitzrayim, or whether it's the Medrash that Rashi quotes in Parshas Shemos on aken noda hadavar because daltorin hayu, that tamati, Moshe Rabbeinu says I couldn't understand why is umma zu singled out for all this suffering. And then aken noda hadavar.

ומדרשו דאג לו על שראה ישראל ברשעים דלטורין אמר מעתה שמא אינם ראויין להגאל.

aken noda hadavar.

ומדרשו נודע לי הדבר שהייתי תמה עליו מה חטאו ישראל מכל שבעים אומות להיות נרדים בעבודת פרך אבל רואה אני שהם ראויים לכך.

So Galus Mitzrayim... is precipitated by cheit. Oh, so maybe that's the pshat. Ramban begins by pointing out the symmetry. Everything aligns. Everything down to the most minute detail. Everything aligns in terms of Golus v'Yitzias Mitzrayim with the ma'aseh Avraham Avinu. But wait a minute, one thing doesn't align seemingly. One thing doesn't align seemingly, that Golus Mitzrayim is precipitated by cheit. Again, whether it's the cheit of v'yisnu oso, whether it's the cheit referred to in achen nodeh hadavor, it's the same cheit. So that's what the Ramban says: veda, no, Avraham Avinu's going down to Mitzrayim is also me'ureh becheit. And that's where the Ramban sees it. It's not stam the Ramban is sort of sitting back and he's judge and jury on Avraham Avinu. No, for the Ramban, this havanah emerges again from the מעשה אבות סימן לבנים, so there needs to be something that correlates with the role of cheit in Golus Mitzrayim. Everything else aligns. Everything else matches. That's what the Ramban says. If you take a look at the Ramban for a minute in the beginning of Vayishlach. You have it there the introductory paragraph in Vayishlach, rabosai:

נכתבה הפרשה הזאת להודיע כי הציל הקדוש ברוך הוא את עבדו וגאלו מיד חזק ממנו וישלח מלאך ויצילהו וללמדנו עוד שהוא לא בטח בצדקתו והשתדל בהצלה בכל יכולתו.

So Parshas Vayishlach teaches us that Yaakov Avinu didn't rely on his own righteousness and his being deserving of Hakadosh Baruch Hu saving him, that it would be totally without any hishtadlus. No, השתדל בהצלה בכל יכולתו. So if you transpose this to Avraham Avinu's context, so doesn't that mean that he should go look for where he can if there's a famine in one land, so then you relocate to the other land? How do you sort of integrate the Ramban saying, and right there's no obviously there's no criticism of Yaakov Avinu here, on the contrary, Yaakov Avinu is a role model. יעקב אבינו לא בטח בצדקתו והשתדל בהצלה בכל יכולתו, Yaakov Avinu lo botach and here אברהם אבינו היה לו לבטוח בשם שיציל אותו. Maybe the pshat is, I'm not sure, maybe the pshat is like this. That since Avraham Avinu had received a tzivuy to go Eretz Yisrael. So it's משל למה הדבר דומה to the Gemara in Beitzah, right? How do you know what's the moker in the Torah for the din that דבר שבמנין צריך מנין אחר להתירו. That once Chazal make a gezeirah, even if the reason seemingly is no longer relevant, but no, you need a comparable Beis Din to matir the issur. Otherwise the issur remains in effect. So the Gemara says that the moker for that is... Even though originally the whole issur to be poreish from an isha was only as preparation for Ma'amad Har Sinai and it was היו נכונים לשלשת ימים אל תגשו אל אשה. And af al pi kein, Hakadosh Baruch Hu was matir the issur later, לכו אמרו להם שובו לכם לאהליכם. So you see that צריך דבר מנין אחר להתירו. So sort of, you know, reminiscent of that, by free association, reminiscent of that, the Ramban says no, the the default way of operating is the way Yaakov Avinu did. But Avraham Avinu received a tzivuy to go to Eretz Yisrael and Hakadosh Baruch Hu never modified that. So under those conditions, it's as Avraham Avinu should have understood that he was told to go to Eretz Yisrael. I, how is that sustainable? If there's a if there's a ra'av, כי אלוקים ברוב יפדנו ממוות. But Avraham Avinu is the is the exceptional case because of the prior tzivuy of לך לך אל הארץ אשר אראך. You're talking that that's the pshat. I think I should have read the the lashonos of כי אלוקים ברוב יפדנו ממוות because we were talking about yetzirah and aretz. This phrase was about Sarah Imeinu. I should have read the other phrase. Just circling back to what we spoke about before in terms of where does the Ramban take it from that Avraham Avinu chata cheit gadol? So l'chora even after what we said, but why why does the Ramban need a two-count indictment for Avraham Avinu? So we said that galus Mitzrayim is intertwined with with cheit. So for everything to align, it has to be that Avraham Avinu's going to Mitzrayim is also intertwined with cheit. But how does the Ramban know that he has to find two chata'im here? Maybe just yetziaso min ha'aretz? Maybe maybe the you know, what the the deception he intended with Sarah Imeinu, maybe that wasn't appropriate? So I don't know, so maybe what we said before that in terms of galus Mitzrayim, so we mentioned the cheit in terms of the shevatim which is what results in ויוסיפו עוד לשנוא אותו. But then there's also cheit in Mitzrayim as in the midrash achen noda hadavar. So maybe that's what the Ramban is saying, so by Avraham Avinu you taka have both of those were also anticipated. There's the cheit again which results in going to Mitzrayim which is the cheit of yetziaso min ha'aretz, and then there's the cheit in Mitzrayim of with Sarah which parallels that there was cheit in Mitzrayim. How does how does the Ramban work with the mishna in Avos that says עשרה נסיונות נתנסה אברהם אבינו ועמד בכולם, meaning if he actually did a cheit by leaving Eretz Yisrael? I guess there's different counts of what the nisyonos were. But assuming that going down to Mitzrayim was one of the nisyonos, so based on the way the Ramban is teitching it up, it doesn't sound like Avraham Avinu was omeid b'nisayon, he should have stayed in Eretz Yisrael. Isn't isn't that almost like a failure on Avraham Avinu's part? So depending upon how how you ask the question, you know, I think we might be able to duck. So maybe for the Ramban that's not one of the ten nisyonos. So then you're asking a different question is it sort of seems anomalous that Avraham Avinu who's omeid b'nisyonos should have been nichshal in a in a nisayon. And isn't the mashma even nicha that the Ramban won't count this as one of the ten? And maybe the answer is like this. Let's read here for a second.

ודע כי אברהם אבינו חטא חטא גדול בשגגה שהביא אשתו הצדקת במכשול עון מפני פחדו פן יהרגוהו.

So the Ramban emphasizes that even according to his indictment, Avraham Avinu's cheit was b'shogeg. Again, he says it explicitly the first time, but u'stama it carries over to the second one also by yetziyaso min ha'aretz. So maybe that's where you'll find the answer to your question, d'haynu, Avraham Avinu would have failed a nisayon if he wouldn't have had the emotional fortitude and conviction and belief in Hashem to leave his family. He would have said, "I can't do it. It's too hard. It's too hard." If he would have said, "I can't. It's not humanly possible for me to carry out the akeida." Here, Avraham Avinu was not—the Ramban is faulting Avraham Avinu for his judgment. As Avraham Avinu made a judgment call. What does Hakadosh Baruch Hu want from me now? There's a famine. He wants me to stay, he wants me to go? And he makes the wrong judgment, but that's not—I don't know if the cheit is in the nisayon shebo. Because mitzad hanisayon no, it wasn't that Avraham Avinu couldn't be omed benisayon. It's not that the nisayon of the famine was one that he couldn't withstand, it's that he makes the wrong judgment as to what he's supposed to do. And in that sense, it's the cheit happens on a different level than not measuring up to a nisayon. It's an important yesod that I think your question highlights that then it teases off from the Ramban, a very, very important yesod, that Hakadosh Baruch Hu, the way Hakadosh Baruch Hu judges us and therefore the standard to which we have to hold ourselves, we're not only held to a standard of, "Did you want to do the right thing?" Did you think you were doing the right thing? No, the standard has to be if a person is in a position to know the right thing and he doesn't, I don't know, he doesn't think it through carefully enough, hard enough, for whatever reason, if klapei shamaya galya that he should have known better, hagam that again, he wants to do the right thing, in his mind he's doing the right thing, but if Hakadosh Baruch Hu knows that this person could have understood better and more deeply, so that's part of our achrayos. You know, I thought this was right, okay, maybe sometimes it's a defense, but clearly according to what the Ramban is telling us, it's not a defense all the time. You know, I thought it was right. Question is, Hakadosh Baruch Hu's going to judge whether or not a person could have and therefore should have known, should know better. Okay, maybe we'll switch to Gemara now.