Transcript

Let's see the first Ramban here in Parshat Noach. Eleh toldos Noach טעם פירושו בו כבר הסב. So again, Ta'am in the Ramban often, you know, we use the term in the sense of reason. In the Ramban it usually, maybe always, I don't know, but certainly very often, means the content, the meaning of it. The flavor of the food is in the food, right? It's inherent to the dish, to the food. So Ta'am means the meaning. Eleh toldos Noach טעם פירושו בו כבר הסב. So Eleh toldos Noach means this is the history of Noah's era, of Noah, of Noah's era, כטעם מה ילד יום. How can toldos, toldos is certainly derivative of lashon leidah? So how does it mean history, how does it mean the happenings, kavarose the happenings? כטעם מה ילד יום because figuratively you say what a day births. That's the figure of speech. So based on that figure of speech, so the happenings are the toldos. וירמוז על כל הפרשה and then it's introducing the whole story of what leads up and then the mabul and what follows. Ve'eino nachon be'einai, says the Ramban, כי אין קורות אדם תולדותיו. By saying toldos Noach, so it's being ascribed to Noah. So meila what a person does, his actions, you can ascribe to the person, you can attribute to the person, but not everything that happens in a person's lifetime. You know, if a person was alive, ich veis, when they had the stock market crash. He happened to be alive then, but it wasn't his doing. So how would you sort of, even given this idiom of mah yeled yom and that happenings can be referred to as toldos, but to then refer to them as the toldos ha'adam, the Ramban doesn't think it's correct. Vehanachon shehu kemashma'o, כמו אלה תולדות בני נח. No, it means these are the children, the progeny. Ve'eleh toldos Yishmael.

יאמר אלה תולדות נח שם חם ויפת. אבל החזיר ויולד נח.

So if toldos is introducing the children, so why does it say vayoled? Then that's repetitious. If it's the toldos hayamim, so then vayoled Noach is not repetitious.

אבל החזיר ויולד נח בעבור שהפסיק ואמר נח איש צדיק תמים היה להודיע למה צווהו בתיבה ואף על פי שכבר אמר למעלה ויהי נח בן חמש מאות שנה ויולד נח את שם את חם ואת יפת חזר להזכירם פעם אחרת להגיד כי לא היה ככל אבותיו שיוליד בנים ובנות וזה טעם שלשה בנים כי יזכיר מספרם לומר כי אלה השלשה לבדם היו תולדותיו וניצלו.

Rashi also apparently thinks that toldos mean the the children, right? Because Rashi says, Rashi quotes on on our pasuk that zeicher tzaddik livracha. That when you mention a tzaddik, then you have to praise him. Because Rashi is bothered that that if eileh toldos Noach means this is the history of Noach, okay, so then it follows perfectly what we're saying who Noach was. Noach was an ish tzaddik. But if eileh toldos Noach means the children of Noach, so then Noach ish tzaddik is is interrupting the flow. So that's what Rashi says, "No, the midrash says that zeicher tzaddik livracha, that when you mention..." I think that's what Rashi has in this pasuk. Yeah. Yeah. What's the what's the lashon of Rashi that he has there? הואיל והזכירו סיפר בשבחו שנאמר זכר צדיק לברכה. What does the Ramban how is the Ramban explaining why the Torah has to repeat, given that at the end of Parshas Bereishis the Torah already told us ויולד נח את שם את חם ואת יפת? So the Ramban seems to be giving two answers. Number one is I mean that was ויהי נח בן חמש מאות שנה is a hundred years before the mabul, right? And the mabul happens, the pasuk is going to say later in Parshas Noach, when Noach is six hundred years old I think. So that was a hundred so maybe he had more children during that in the intervening century. So no, it still ויולד נח שלשה בנים, that remains that's updated. That remains up to date, that that description. That seems to be one reason why the Torah

חזר להזכירם פעם אחרת להגיד כי לא היה ככל אבותיו שהולידו בנים ובנות. וזה הטעם שלשה בנים כי יזכיר מספרם לומר כי אלו שלשה לבדם היו תולדותיו.

So that seems to be one answer as to why the Torah is repeating it even though it said it earlier in Parshas Bereishis. But then venitzlu bizchuso seems to be a second answer. Dahaynu that the Torah repeats that Shem, Cham, and Yafes are the sons of Noach in the parsha of the mabul to tell us that it was in that capacity that they were saved. Meaning what we know from in in Parshas Bereishis the the Torah gives us a family tree, and Shem, Cham, and Yafes are the sons of Noach. Is is that maybe their being saved in the mabul we'll see later at the end of this piece if we get to it, Ramban has two possible explanations for why they're saved. Initially he only presents one. But either way, the truth is, according to both, is it were they there sort of let's say Shem's last name wasn't Shem ben Noach, let's say it had been שם בן איך וייס בן למך. So maybe he would have been saved also. If it had been Cham ben Lamech, it had been Yafes ben Lamech. So the Torah's coming and saying no, that they in this context of the mabul we need to repeat and review the fact that they were the sons of Noach, because it was in that capacity that they were saved. That seems to be the Ramban's second explanation for the repetition.

איש צדיק תמים היה. יזכיר הכתוב שהיה זכאי ושלם בצדקו להודיע שראוי. ראוי להינצל מן המבול שאין לו עונש כלל כי הוא תמים בצדק כי הצדיק הוא הזכאי בדין.

Hepech harasha kemo she’amar והצדיקו את הצדיק והרשיעו את הרשע. Vechain ואתה צדיק על כל הבא עלינו כי אמת עשית. Vechain bezedek tishpot amitecha. Ramban says that the translation of tzadik is not righteous but innocent. And and that's why you find in the context of din והצדיקו את הצדיק והרשיעו את הרשע meaning that they should exonerate the innocent and and they should condemn the guilty. That's the the translation of והצדיקו את הצדיק והרשיעו את הרשע. They should exonerate the innocent and and they should condemn the guilty. So tzadik tamim for the Ramban translates as entirely innocent.

להודיע יזכירהו הכתוב שהיה זכאי ושלם בצדקו להודיע שראוי להינצל מן המבול שאין לו עונש כלל כי הוא תמים בצדק כי הצדיק הוא הזכאי בדין.

So the Ramban here lichora is is coming to to address the following question. That Gemara in Kiddushin says the Rambam quotes at the beginning of פרק ג' הלכות תשובה that when Hakadosh Baruch Hu judges the world so he judges the world not only every individual of כל באי עולם עוברים לפניו כבני מרון that every individual is judged but Hakadosh Baruch Hu also judges the world collectively. And he judges the world as a whole as well. Rambam says he judges every medina collectively as well each medina as well and but it's meforash there at the end of the first perek Kiddushin Hakadosh Baruch Hu judges the world as a whole. So then the question is so how do how do we understand in light of that mida so how do we understand Noach being saved? If the world is judged as a whole and that's why the Rambam writes it is that a Rambam Hilchos Teshuva? Yeah. Thank you.

וכן כל העולם כולו אם היו עוונותיהם מרובים מזכויותיהם מיד הן נשחתין.

And and what's remarkable is that the Rambam's raya is from this from from from the dor hamabul that the dor hamabul is destroyed. So everyone then has to grapple with the question so how do we understand in light of this mida how is Noach spared? If the world is being judged collectively and the world collectively is is guilty so lichora what the Ramban means is as follows. So the Rav once explained I think I think he said I'm not sure if he said all of this is in the Malbim some of it in the Malbim you'll take a look. Certainly some of it maybe all of it is in the Malbim. That on the one hand in Parshas Chukas it seems it is explicit in the Torah it doesn't just seem it's explicit in the Torah that Moshe Rabbeinu doesn't enter Eretz Yisrael because of Mei Meriva.

על אשר לא קידשתם אותי בתוך בני ישראל במי מריבת קדש.

Velachen lo lo taveeu I forget how the pasuk goes. So it's explicit. Moshe Rabbeinu is ne'enash because of על אשר לא קידשתם אותי again the Or HaChaim HaKadosh famously has the quotes the ten different pshatim on what exactly Moshe Rabbeinu's cheit is so dakka stay we can't even figure out what the cheit was. But there was some kind of cheit and Moshe Rabbeinu doesn't enter the land. But then you have so that's meforash in the psukim but it's also meforash in the psukim in Parshas Devarim

גם בי התאנף ה' בגללכם לאמר גם אתה לא תבוא שם.

So in Parshas Devarim the Torah explicitly attributes Moshe Rabbeinu not entering Eretz Yisrael that he was nichlal in the gzaira of the dor hamidbar.

גם בי התאנף ה' בגללכם לאמר גם אתה לא תבוא שם.

So again you look to see how much maybe all of this I don't remember is in the Malbim but the Rav said as follows. He said the pshat is like this. The emes is the gzaira of the the dor hamidbar again leaving aside the why Kalev v'Yehoshua were given an exemption but the gzaira was on the. entire generation. I don't know if he highlighted the fact also that Moshe Rabbeinu is the leader of the generation, I'm not, I think maybe he did, but I'm, I can't swear to that. Kol zman, however, that Moshe Rabbeinu was entirely menuka me'avon, so then in a certain sense, he stood apart from the generation. When, if, kol zman Moshe Rabbeinu was entirely menuka me'avon, not just the avon of, of the, of the meraglim and, and that. But kol zman Moshe Rabbeinu was entirely menuka me'avon, so that set him apart from the generation. And that's what could have, would have exempted him from the gezeira on the dor midbar. But the minute Moshe Rabbeinu isn't a hundred percent menuka me'avon, the minute Moshe Rabbeinu was chotei by mei meriva, so then that cheit alone apparently wouldn't have, okay, there would have been some, again, Hakadosh Baruch Hu is not a vatran, there would have been some kind of, whatever would have happened, I don't know, but it wouldn't have resulted necessarily in preventing Moshe Rabbeinu going to Eretz Yisrael, but once he's not entirely menuka me'avon, so now he's nichlal in the gezeira of the dor. And the Ramban is saying that exact same vort here by Noach. That's what the Ramban is saying, right? When the Ramban emphasizes that שראוי להינצל מן המבול שיזכה כאשר יזכה ושלם בצדקו, like his innocence was complete. It's a funny lashon, like you're either innocent or guilty, you know, what do you mean innocent is complete? No, so it means he's not just innocent in that he's rubo zechuyos, right? He's not just innocent in the sense that he's rubo zechuyos, no, he's zakai v'shaleim betzidko, he's totally, entirely innocent. And that teaches you it's by virtue of that fact that ראוי להינצל מן המבול שאין לו עונש כלל. If, if Noach, if there would have been some dent in his armor, there would have been some, some, albeit very, very, very, very slight pegam, but if he hadn't been shaleim betzidko, so then he's not totally different than the generation. Okay, yes, there's a spectrum, he's not like, he's not identical to them, but he's not totally set apart. There is a certain common ground, he also has that little bit of chovos, so then he's not going to get a pass when the world is being nidon, he's a part of the world. He's a part of the world. But if, if Noach is tamim betzidko, zakai v'shaleim betzidko, then he's ראוי להינצל שאין לו עונש כלל כי תמים בצדק. So that's how the Ramban is, is explaining. How would that explain Shem, Cham, v'Yafes, and their wives, and Noach's wife? So the Ramban goes on, initially here, well again, a line earlier he said, venitzlu bizchuso, that that's part of his hatzala. It's part of his hatzala. Then later he's going to have two possibilities. Later he repeats that, he says,

והנה אחר שהיה נח צדיק ואיננו ראוי לעונש גם בניו וביתו ראויים להינצל בזכותו כי היה עונש עליו אם יכרת זרעו.

So that's the same mahalach he repeats. O yomar,

כי הוא צדיק שלם וגם בניו ובני ביתו צדיקים כי הוא למדם.

So the Ramban is two mahalachim, but either way again, either again they qualified as his, because they were his sons and he taught them, which is why the pshat we said before works according to the second lashon as well, so therefore they, they were, they qualified for the same exemption, or no, they didn't need to have their own zechus because he was entitled to be spared from the gezeira of the dor hamabul, which means not to have his, not to have his children destroyed. Even again it's a question what does it mean that yesh dorshin what does it mean yesh dorshin legnai but even if you sort of take it on the literal level that if he was bedor of Avraham Avinu. Meaning Avraham Avinu was more than within shalem betzidko there can be madregos. A person can be shalem betzidko but ich veis I don't know there's someone else who's shalem betzidko and does more midas chasidus. He's shalem betzidko but he was successful in being mekarev more people. So the yesh dorshin legnai it's a left-handed compliment it's a left-handed insult. It's not much of an insult. Lamaiyse he's still a tzaddik tamim. Okay albeit had he lived in the generation of Avraham Avinu he wouldn't be known as the tzaddik hador. He wouldn't be known as the gadol hador. But ich veis if you say that someone today who people look to as a gadol hador if he'd lived when the Shach was alive so he wouldn't have been considered the gadol hador. Okay it's not too much of a put-down you're not saying he's an am ha'aretz. You're saying that if the Shach were here then he would have dwarfed him but that's not too much of an insult. Okay we'll stop here so bli neder after again the Tehillim is at one I think bli neder and the five and Mincha and then a few minutes after Mincha bli neder we'll resume the shiur.