And we're going to begin today on the pasuk at the beginning of parshas Vayeira. ויעבר אברם בארץ עד מקום שכם עד אלון מורה והכנעני אז בארץ.
And the Ramban comments, אמרתי לך כלל תבין אותו בכל הפרשיות הבאות בענין אברהם יצחק ויעקב והוא ענין גדול. הזכירו אותו רבותינו בדרך קצר ואמרו כל מה שאירע לאבות סימן לבנים. וכן יאריכו הכתובים בספור המסעות וחפירת הבארות ושאר המקרים ויחשוב החושב בהם כאלו הם דברים מיותרים אין בהם תועלת.
And in fact, the correct perspective is that וכולם באים ללמד על העתיד כי כאשר יבא המקרה לנביא משלושת האבות יתבונן ממנו הדבר הנגזר לבא לזרעו.
In the hakdama to sefer Bereishis, so the Ramban there, he's commenting on the pasuk in parshas Mishpatim ועלה אלי ההרה והיה שם ואתנה לך את לחת האבן והתורה והמצוה אשר כתבתי להורתם.
So what do each of those phrases refer to? לוחות האבן והתורה והמצוה. כי לוחות האבן יכללו הלוחות והמכתב. והלוחות הם עשרת הדברות. והמצוה מספר המצוות כולן עשה ולא תעשה.
I'm also going to teach you when you're in Har Sinai, Hakadosh Baruch Hu says to Moshe Rabbeinu, also teach you the taryag mitzvos. So what does Torah mean as distinct from luchos ha'even vehamitzvah in this context? אם כן והתורה יכללו הסיפור מתחילת בראשית. Torah refers to all the narrative of Chumash, the stories. כי הוא מורה האנשים בדרך בענין האמונה. That the point, the reason that we have stories in the Chumash is to instruct us, it teaches us in emunah. So here the Ramban is telling us that there's another perspective on the stories and that is the k'lal of Chazal מעשה אבות סימן לבנים. That what happened to the avos, to Avraham, Yitzchak, and Yaakov anticipates, represented what would happen subsequently in Jewish history. The Ramban writes that sefer Bereishis is Sefer Hayetzira. Sefer Shemos is Sefer Hage'ula. And the Ramban famously in the hakdama to sefer Shemos and then again in the beginning of parshas Terumah, explains how it is that all of sefer Shemos is Sefer Hage'ula when seemingly by the time we get to parshas Beshalach we're finished with the story of the ge'ula. So Ramban explains that ge'ula, redemption, is not can't be measured politically, geographically, but the ge'ula is when Klal Yisrael returns el ma'alas avosam. And that is perpetuated. So the ge'ula is when they come to the foot of Har Sinai, Ma'amad Har Sinai, and then that's what the Ramban says that the point of the Mishkan was to perpetuate that hashras ha'Shechina which existed at Har Sinai at the time of Mattan Torah to perpetuate that. And that's how all of sefer Shemos is Sefer Hage'ula. But the question is that sefer Bereishis seems to be a bigger problem for the Ramban. How can kol sefer Bereishis Sefer Hayetzira? Clearly the Ramban says that the designation, the title of the Chumash of chamishah chumshei Torah doesn't just refer to one and the very, very important theme because the Ramban clearly is taking pains about Sefer Shemos to explain how the Sefer Hageulah is really something is is a description and the title which encapsulates the entire Chumash. But how does it work for Sefer Bereishis? How is Sefer Bereishis Sefer Hayetzirah? So they explain that it's in light of this principle of מעשה אבות סימן לבנים. מעשה אבות סימן לבנים means that the Avos, Avraham, Yitzchak, and Yaakov didn't simply live personal private lives. But in their lives, they again created the patterns of of Jewish history. And again, the Ramban then applies this principle in in his Parshanus as he proceeds already right here in Parshas Lech Lecha. So if that's the case, so then all the story of the the Avos is is part of Sefer Yetzirah. Is that the Yetzirah doesn't just mean the physical creation of the world in Sheshes Yemei Bereishis which the Torah is finished with in in the first Aliyah of Parshas Bereishis, but but Sefer Yetzirah also encompasses the stories of all the Avos because again and it's not just sort of their personal biographies or excerpts from their personal lives or biographies that the Torah is sharing with us, but this created the subsequent patterns of of history. Right, the Ramban's about to explain that that Avraham Avinu going down to Mitzrayim because of of raav anticipates later with the Shivtei Kah having to go down because of of raav and then the the chamas done to Sarah anticipates the suffering in Mitzrayim and then the fact that Sarah is is returned and and Avraham Avinu leaves with all the matanos in hand anticipates Yetzias Mitzrayim v'chulu v'chulu. And again, could say that the Ramban applies this principle in his Parshanus as he proceeds already right here in Parshas Lech Lecha. I heard a beautiful ha'arah that I heard it both besheim Rav Shwadron the Maggid from Yerushalayim as well as besheim besheim Rav Hutner. The the Torah records the death of Yosef twice. The death of Yosef is recorded at the end of Parshas Vayechi, Vayamos Yosef and Vayusam Ba'aron Bemitzrayim. And then the Torah records it again at the beginning of Parshas Shemos, that וימת יוסף וכל אחיו וכל הדור ההוא. So why does the Torah record the death of Yosef twice is one question. The second question is that when the Torah records it the first time, so the Torah doesn't tell us at the end of Parshas Vayechi the the about the death of the other Shivtei Kah. Torah only tells us about the death of Yosef. After all, Yosef was the first to die, the other brothers are all alive. And so it's lichora would have been a neater division, one would have expected that it would have been a neater division to record the death of that whole generation of Yosef and the brothers at the end of Parshas Vayechi and then begin with Vayakom Melech Chadash in Parshas Shemos. So both Rav Shwadron and Rav Hutner, so שניהם נסכמנו בדבר אחד and they said as follows. Agam that Chazal say in Berachos and in Chullin לא קורין לאבות אלא לשלשה that only Avraham, Yitzchak, and Yaakov are Avos. That means entirely. But to a degree, Yosef HaTzaddik also had that bechina of being an Av. And that's reflected in the fact that like Yaakov Avinu, Yosef was also maamid shevatim because Ephraim and Menashe are separate in the minyan hashevatim. So that's a reflection of this bechina of Av that Yosef HaTzaddik had as well. Again, it's entirely consistent. level as Avraham, Yitzchak, and Yaakov. So in that sense, אין קוראים אבות אלא לשלושה. But this was only true, again, because you see: ומולדתך אשר הולדת אחריהם לך יהיו על שם אחיהם יקראו בנחלתם.
It's not that all of Yaakov Avinu's sons are shvatim, and with Yosef it's something partial. This, that being the case, so the pshat, this is what Radvaz and the Chasam Sofer both said, the vort is like this. Sefer Bereishis, the Ramban says, is Sefer Yetzira. Again, how is it Sefer Yetzira beyond the first Aliya in the Sefer? Because מעשה אבות סימן לבנים. מעשה אבות סימן לבנים, so Yosef HaTzaddik to a degree belongs to that. So Yosef HaTzaddik, his death has to be recorded in Sefer Bereishis. That's the end of Sefer Yetzira. The end of Sefer Yetzira is with the petira of Yosef HaTzaddik. The other shivtei Kah don't have that status, but Yosef himself also doesn't have that status entirely. So hence the Torah records the petira of Yosef twice: once at the end of Sefer Bereishis, and a second time—and only the second time—together with the other shivtei Kah in the beginning of Chumash Shemos. The Rov has something nifla here in this context. He asks, how do you reconcile this principle of מעשה אבות סימן לבנים that what the Avos did, created, determined the subsequent patterns and happenings of Jewish history? So how does that shtim with bechira chofshis? So Yitzchak Avinu digs three be'eros, and it's only... and the first two there's עסק כי התעשקו עמו and then there's sitna, and then finally there's רחובות כי עתה הרחיב השם לנו ופרינו בארץ. Ramban, again, applying this klal of מעשה אבות סימן לבנים, says that the three wells represent the three Batei Mikdash, and it's going to be the third Beis HaMikdash which is never ever challenged, never ever questioned, and that stands forever. So what does that mean? So that means that the first two churbanos are already nigzar. So where does that allow for bechira not to have sinned and that way the churbanos could have been prevented? So the Rov says something extraordinary, mamish extraordinary. We know that the Bas Kol recorded in Eruvin tells us about the machlokes between Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel, אלו ואלו דברי אלוהים חיים. So what does that mean? What does אלו ואלו דברי אלוהים חיים mean? It means that when HaKadosh Baruch Hu gave the Torah—let's talk in halacha—when HaKadosh Baruch Hu gave the Torah, there are many, many, many, many things in the Torah which are black and white. Black and white, HaKadosh Baruch Hu said the din is like this, and HaKadosh Baruch Hu said this is assur, this is muttar, many, many, many, many things which are black and white. But then HaKadosh Baruch Hu also intentionally left a gray area in the Torah where HaKadosh Baruch Hu didn't say what the din is explicitly. He didn't say whether it's muttar or whether it's assur. And there, it was HaKadosh Baruch Hu's intention, it is HaKadosh Baruch Hu's intention that the chachmei hamesorah, after having mastered everything, all the black and white in Torah, everything which is explicit in Torah, after having done their best to think based on that the way the Torah thinks, to have by that total immersion in divrei Torah, so then through מידה שהתורה נדרשת בהן, through comparison, through extrapolation, so the chachmei hamesorah are supposed to figure out what the din is in the gray cases. That being the case, you can have a difference of opinion, you can have... but logically at two mutually exclusive positions and they can both be true. They can both be equally valid in terms of that they're both consistent with again all the black and white in Torah in terms of using and applying מדות שהתורה נדרשת בהן and you can have that Beis Shammai says that when you say Krias Shema at night you have to lie down and that for Beis Hillel it only means zman shechiva. It's only telling you what the zman is and those can be two equally valid and therefore true and cogent interpretations of the Dvar Hashem. Okay. In terms of halacha it doesn't mean that they're equal normatively. It doesn't mean that a person can decide that he's going to follow Beis Shammai because the bas kol said halacha k'Beis Hillel. Halacha k'Beis Hillel. Doesn't mean a person can follow the yachid against the rabbim. The Torah said acharei rabbim l'hattos. So there's one thing in terms of whether or not it represents whether or not it's a valid expression of truth and then there's a second question of what do we do lemaiseh? Which is the normative opinion? So says the Rav, the same way, look at the Rav's words. Devarim niflaim. The same way there's אלו ואלו דברי אלוקים חיים in taitching what u'vshochbecha u'vkumecha means in Chumash. So there's אלו ואלו דברי אלוקים חיים in taitching the מעשה אבות סימן לבנים. The same way the Dvar Hashem of u'vshochbecha u'vkumecha admits of potentially multiple equally valid interpretations that Chachmei HaMesorah who are advancing those interpretations based on their mastery of kol haTorah kullah based on their immersion in Torah based on their thinking the way having trained their minds al pi Torah based on their yiras shamayim you can have multiple equally valid interpretations of the maiseh avos. And he gives one example, I mean it would have been extraordinary to have to go through all of Chumash Bereishis like this but he doesn't he gives one example and he says that the Akeida could have happened in either of two ways. It could have happened there could have been a physical Akeida where Avraham Avinu actually shechting Yitzchak as he understood the tzivuy of v'ha'aleihu sham l'olah or there's also the Akeida did happen in the sense that Avraham Avinu the Rambam writes this when he talks about the Akeida Avraham Avinu in his willingness and readiness to implement the tzivay Hashem sacrificed Yitzchak in the sense that he sacrificed that deep paternal love that Avraham Avinu had, that hope and chishuka that Avraham Avinu had to become the progenitor of a אומה היודעת את אלוקים so Avraham Avinu sacrificed all that, he sacrificed all that because it's not possible, he sacrificed all that and with that was poised sacrifice. Hakadosh Baruch Hu said no that's also a kiyum of the Akeida. It's eilu v'eilu. The Akeida could have been mekayam in either of two ways. So the principle of eilu v'eilu is not just in halacha it's in these patterns of Jewish history as well and the Rav says that's how מעשה אבות סימן לבנים notwithstanding that's how the bechira is not an all-conquering fate. Then the Ramban continues here he says ודע כי כל גזירת עירין כאשר תצא מכח גזירה אל פועל דענין תהיה הגזירה מתקיימת על כל פנים.
Okay that should be understood as we just discussed. ולכן יעשו הנביאים מעשה בנבואות כמאמר ירמיהו שצוה והיה ככלותך לקרוא את הספר הזה תקשור אל אבן והשלכתו אל תוך הפרת ואמרת ככה תשקע בבל וגו'. וכן ענין אלישע בהניחו זרועו על הקשת ויאמר אלישע ירה ויור ויאמר חץ תשועה לה' וחץ תשועה בארם. ונאמר שם ויקצוף עליו איש האלהים ויאמר להכות חמש או שש פעמים אז הכית את ארם עד כלה ועתה שלוש פעמים תכה את ארם. ולפיכך חפץ הקדוש ברוך הוא בארץ ועשה לו דמיונות בכל העתיד להעשות בזרעו ובפרק זה.
The Ramban says there's even an ir v'kadish, the phrase from Daniel, that the... that is nofel from Kruvim. So an ir v'kadish is a malach. So ir is what's above. Ki kol gezeiras irin when you have a gezeirah from above, when it's concretized through a symbolic action, po'al dimyon, a symbolic action, תהא הגזרה מתקיימת על כל פנים. The gezeirah then, that as it were, that clinches the gezeirah. Obviously you can ask the question why then, why does the sun rise in the east and and and set in the west? Kach hatzeva, it's not... the question is not why. But just to try to have a little bit of perspective on on this midda, on this hanhaga. Right, and and and if you recall from Nefesh HaChaim, so Rav Chaim Volozhin explains, and and this is not not he doesn't intend this as as his chiddush. That every world is really animated by the world above it, which is more spiritual, and hence closer to, closer, not in a physical sense, closer to HaKadosh Baruch Hu who's the mekor mekor hachayim. An example, a concretization of of that fact, of that principle, so Rav Chaim Volozhin quotes a lashon in Midrash Chazal. It's reflected in in the kinos that we say on Tisha B'Av, said about Titus, that kimcha techina tachanta, that you ground up flour which was already ground up. So what's what's that metaphor? So Rav Chaim Volozhin explains that that the only way Titus and Nevuchadnezzar were able to destroy the Beis HaMikdash was only after Rachmana litzlan our chata'im had already destroyed the Beis HaMikdash she'malla. So then and only then could they be sholeach yad in the Beis HaMikdash she'lmata. So what happens in in this world is again, the vitality of of this world depends upon olamos elyonim and mimeila what happens in this world is is determined by what happens in olamos elyonim. Sort of the way we then affect this world is because our ma'asim of the בני אברהם יצחק ויעקב, Yaakov chevel nachalaso. So the same way you tug on a rope which is, the bottom of the rope is over here and and and it's swinging up above, so that's the way we really affect this world. comes up and and and comes back down. So itochein, it's sort of the perspective, a little bit of perspective on what the Ramban is telling us about the כגזרת עירין כאשר תצא מכוח הגזרה אל פועל הדמיון is that when you have a maiseh that's done, agam that obviously what Jeremiah is doing, what Elisha is doing, vechulu is happening in this world, but when you have a maiseh done al pi nevuah and you have this symbolic action done al pi nevuah, it's also on a higher level than than this world is, and in that sense, that's how it, the same way the very chiyus of this world depends upon the the chiyus of the body depends upon the neshama, the chiyus of of everything depends upon that which is which is more spiritual than it, which which animates it. So too this maiseh, which is a maiseh bi-nevuos, which belongs to to a higher order, to a higher realm, so that then trickles down to to this world. Maybe that's the a partial perspective on on this mida. That's what the Ramban says, ולפיכך החזיק הקדוש ברוך הוא את אברהם בארץ ועשה לו דמיונות בכל העתיד להעשות בזרעו.
And and what we've then continue to read about here, says the Ramban, is all again the the pattern patterns of subsequent Jewish history, our Eretz Yisrael belonging to us, galus, all that is is already reflected, anticipated in the stories of Avraham Avinu here. You'll see, he then tells us some of the details, he fleshes out out some of the details. The Torah says on vayeitak misham ha-harah, Avraham Avinu moves, מקדם לבית אל ויט אהלה בית אל מים והעי מקדם ויבן שם מזבח לה' ויקרא בשם ה'.
So Avraham Avinu, vayikra b'shem Hashem. The Ramban begins by by quoting Onkelos, and Onkelos renders vayikra b'shem Hashem as v'tzali bishma de-Hashem, that it meant that Avraham Avinu davened. Vayikra b'shem Hashem, peirush Onkelos she-hitpallel sham, kemo קראתי שמך ה' מבור תחתיות. So agav, le-chorei, you see from Onkelos's Onkelos's understanding of the pasuk, that that idea that we spoke about I think we spoke about Thursday night we spoke about, but the convergence of makom avodah and and makom tefillah you see here in in this reflected in this Onkelos as well. Ve-hanachon, the Ramban says that that what he thinks is the pshat in the pasuk is שהיה קורא בקול גדול שם לפני המזבח השם השם, מודיע אותו ואלוהותו לבני אדם.
That vayikra b'shem Hashem doesn't mean tefillah, although again the Ramban agrees that that sometimes it is an idiom of tefillah, but here it means to publicize, to teach people emuna ba-Hashem. מודיע אותו ואלוהותו לבני אדם. The later the text says ויקרא שם בשם ה' אל עולם. The Rambam, I don't know if the Rambam quotes this pasuk of Vayikra b'shem Hashem. But he does k'seder quote the pasuk in Vayera right before the Akeidah that ויטע אשל בבאר שבע ויקרא שם בשם ה' אל עולם.
So Onkelos again the teitch is there too, ויקרא שם בשם ה', that there too Onkelos interprets as וצלי תמן בשמא דה' אלהא דעלמא. And the Rambam quoting and it's clear that the Rambam understood the pasuk as the Ramban. So for instance in perek aleph Hilchos Avoda Zara, so keivan that after Avraham Avinu discovery of Hakadosh Baruch Hu and began polemicizing with the people of the pagan custom, כיון שגבר עליהם בראיותיו ביקש המלך להרגו נעשה לו נס ויצא לחרן והתחיל לעמוד ולקרוא בקול גדול לכל העם ולהודיעם שיש אלוה אחד לכל העולם ולו ראוי לעבוד.
And like Ramban says teaching metzius Hashem, elokus, Hakadosh Baruch Hu's sovereignty, Hakadosh Baruch Hu's governance of the world, והיה מהלך וקורא ומקבץ העם מעיר לעיר ומממלכה לממלכה עד שהגיע לארץ כנען והוא קורא שנאמר ויקרא שם בשם ה' אל עולם.
Same havana as the Ramban. I think the Kapach points out in his Tosafos as well on the beginning of the Moreh, so the Rambam writes this phrase בשם ה' אל עולם. And what seems to be the mechuvan in quoting that phrase in that context is that the Rambam composed the Moreh for that same purpose that Avraham Avinu accomplished and devoted his life to of being the modia שיש אלוה אחד בעולם and elokus that that's what the Rambam's undertaking was in composing the Moreh. ויהי רעב בארץ, so the beginning of the pasuk the Ramban again applies that principle of parshanus of Chazal that we recited quoted before about מעשה אבות סימן לבנים, explains that then the Ramban has assuming that this is the Ramban, Ramban has some staggering lines ודע כי אברהם אבינו חטא חטא גדול בשגגה שהביא אשתו הצדקת במכשול עון מפני פחדו פן יהרגוהו והיה לו לבטוח. מן הארץ אשר נצטוה עליה בתחילה מפני הרעב עון אשר חטא כי האלקים ברעב יפדנו ממות ועל המעשה הזה נגזר על זרעו הגלות בארץ מצרים ביד פרעה במקום המשפט שמה הרשע והחטא.
So the Rav is quoted as having sort of reacted somewhat incredulously to how the Ramban could have undertaken to make such an assessment of Avraham Avinu. If in fact this is the Ramban, so then the question is why was it a cheit? Can sort of ask the question in two different ways. Why was it a cheit? Shouldn't isn't it the right thing to make some hishtadlus? Vayehi ra'av ba'aretz, so people are going to Rachmana litzlan are going to die from the of the famine. So you have to go to Egypt. Number two to be very sort of small-minded about it. We generally associate cheit with violating, contradicting a tzivui. So is there a tzivui here that היה לו לבטוח בשם שיציל אותו ואת אשתו ואת כל אשר לו?
Was there a prior tzivui on habitachon that Avraham Avinu is guilty of violating that the Ramban labels this a cheit gadol albeit bishgaga? So by the leaving Eretz Yisrael. So there the mashma'us in that case in the Ramban is that itachen that Hakadosh Baruch Hu told him to go to Eretz Yisrael. So implicit in that was Hakadosh Baruch Hu didn't tell him to buy a round trip ticket. Hakadosh Baruch Hu told him to buy a one way ticket to Eretz Yisrael. Send your lift and so there that's the mashma'us. And the Ramban says גם ביציאתו מן הארץ שנצטוה עליה בתחילה מפני הרעב עון אשר חטא.
So there you understand that ein hachi nami that implicit in the לך לך אל הארץ אשר אראך is go there and stay there. So the Hakadosh Baruch Hu meaning and come what may, come what may you should go and you should stay there. But what about but there is no such Ramban doesn't provide us with he doesn't reference some tzivui. So there is a very very major yesod in Torah and therefore in life presented the way the Sefer Chasidim presents it that it's not something which Which is idiosyncratic to the Sefer Chassidim. It's a yesod gadol, klal gadol baTorah. The Gemara in Brachos says לעולם יהיה אדם ערום ביראה. So what does it mean to be arum beyirah? The Sefer Chassidim explains by giving a couple of examples. One of the examples the Sefer Chassidim gives is in Parshas Mattos. The Torah says וייקצף משה על פקודי החיל. That when the generals of the war against Midian returned, so Moshe Rabbeinu goes out and he angrily accosts them and says Hachayitem kol nekeva? Did you spare the women? הן הנה היו לבני ישראל בדבר בלעם למסור מעל בה׳
or something like that. So the Sefer Chassidim says there's just one minor difficulty here: Moshe Rabbeinu never told them to kill the women. So what does he want from them? Moshe Rabbeinu is berogez. וייקצף משה על פקודי החיל. Hachayitem kol nekeva? But in the Chumash, Moshe Rabbeinu never told them when he gave them their marching orders, Moshe Rabbeinu never told them. Says Sefer Chassidim, that's what it means when the Gemara in Brachos says לעולם יהיה אדם ערום ביראה. Dvar Hashem, Mitzvos Hashem have applications and implications and it's expected that a person is going to apply as intended and is going to appreciate the implications of Dvar Hashem. Right, it's incorrect for a person to say, well, where does it say explicitly in so many exact precise words that I have to do this or that I can't do that? It doesn't say anywhere. It didn't say anywhere in so many words or in anything approaching it that the generals were supposed to kill them. Moshe Rabbeinu says no, from Dvar Hashem which has been revealed, from tzivuyei Hashem which have been given, so it's clear that the applications of that, the implications of that were that you were supposed to kill the nekeivos. And Moshe Rabbeinu says and you're responsible for not having done so because לעולם יהיה אדם ערום ביראה. Rav Moshe has in Igros Moshe what at first glance is an unbelievable chiddush. He says that Bnei Noach are obligated to davven in an eis tzara. Where do you find that? It's not in the Chumash, it's not in the Gemara. But where do you find such a thing that Bnei Noach should be obligated to davven in an eis tzara? Rav Moshe says it's pashut. He says Bnei Noach are obligated to believe in Hakadosh Baruch Hu. A person who believes in the Ribbono Shel Olam, there are no atheists in foxholes. A person who believes in the Ribbono Shel Olam, in an eis tzara calls out to the Ribbono Shel Olam. It's again a natural expression, application, implication of belief. Bitachon, Tefilla are natural, again, applications and implications of belief. Hence Rav Moshe says he thinks it's a chiyuv d'Oraisa for Bnei Noach to davven in an eis tzara. So that's what the Ramban is saying. What, did Hakadosh Baruch Hu ever tell Avraham Avinu trust me? Did he ever tell Avraham Avinu don't worry about what's going to happen to Sarah? No, he didn't. But nevertheless, chet gadol. Tachlis, tachlis though. So Avraham Avinu, what hishtadlus was he supposed to do? Was there an hishtadlus he was supposed to do? E.g., to try to prevent his being killed on account of Sarah, to try to deal with the famine? Again, so by the rov, it's not really a kashya because again, the implication of the Ramban is that Hakadosh Baruch Hu told him stay put, go to Eretz Yisrael and stay there, right, against Rashi, right? Rashi says no, Avraham Avinu was supposed to leave and that gufeh was a nisayon. And the Ramban disagrees with that. So itachen so the following is true. Also a big yesod. To a degree, to again this, like everything, it can be overstated, can be misapplied, but everything can. And so on that basis. To a degree, the chovas hishtadlus that a person has, how much, how much is appropriate, how much is inappropriate, is linked to who that individual is. And there isn't necessarily one size fits all in terms of not only chovas hishtadlus, but what's even permissible and appropriate as hishtadlus. It's not necessarily the case that the Ramban is implying that if we were to find ourselves in some kind of analogous predicament, that we shouldn't be resorting to hishtadlus. Ramban says in next week's parsha on the pasuk כי ידעתי למען אשר יצוה את בניו ואת ביתו אחריו ושמרו דרך ה' לעשות צדקה ומשפט למען הביא ה' על אברהם את אשר דבר עליו.
So Ramban quotes Rashi, and then he says, gives another possibility, then he says והנכון בעיני שהיא ידיעה בו ממש. And maybe we'll talk a little bit some more about this next week, maybe. But והנכון בעיני שהיא ידיעה בו ממש ירמוז כי ידיעת השם שהיא השגחתו בעולם השפל היא לשמור הכלל וגם בני האדם נתונים בו למקרים עד עת פקודתם. אבל בחסידיו ישים אליו לבו לדעת אותו בפרט להיות שמירתו דבקה בו תמיד. לא יפרד הידיעה והזכרון ממנו כלל כטעם לא יגרע מצדיק עיניו. ובאו מזה פסוקים רבים כדכתיב הנה עין ה' אל יראיו וזולת זה.
So kitzur, to just very partially excerpt one, the pasuk of Ki Yedativ says that Avraham Avinu was on such a madreiga that the hashgacha which he merited was such that he wasn't vulnerable to mikrim. He wasn't vulnerable to... there's a flu, so a person can get the flu. Ki Yedativ, the... because of who Avraham Avinu was, because he was Avraham Ohavi, so the hashgacha that Avraham Avinu merited was such that it was שמירתו דבקה בו תמיד. And yitachen that that's what this Ramban means. Lav davka that this Ramban is a paradigm for telling us that if we were in some predicament that we're not supposed to be making hishtadlus. No. How much hishtadlus, whether required, permissible, or wrong, depends upon the individual. And in this context, the variable that we're mentioning is what type of hashgacha he enjoys. And yitachen that that's why for Avraham Avinu, it was, according to the Ramban, a cheit.