And then the Ramban פרק למד דלד פסוק יוד גימל: ויענו בני יעקב את שכם ואת חמור אביו במרמה וידברו אשר טמא את דינה אחותם. הנה חמור ושכם אל אביו ואל אחותה דברו אבל הזקן לא ענה אותם דבר כי בנו הגדול במקומו ידבר בעניין זה וסודו כי בעבור היות הדבר להם לחרפה לא ירצו שיפתח פיו וידבר בו כלל. ויש כאן שאלה אחרת שהדבר נראה כברצון אביהם ובעצתו עשו כי בפניו היו והוא היודע מה ענו כי במרמה ידברו אם כן מה הכעס?
Meaning that Jacob understood that there was, that they were answering bemirmah. And also it’s not possible that he’d give his daughter against the will of their father to a man who had defiled her. And here all the brothers answered this bemirmah. Shimon and Levi alone did the deed and the father cursed their anger and not the deed itself. והתשובה כי המרמה הייתה באמרם להמול לכם כל זכר כי חשבו שלא יעשו כן בני העיר ואם אולי ישמעו לנשיאם ויהיו כולם נימולים יבואו ביום השלישי בהיותם כואבים ויקחו בתם מבית שכם וזאת עצת כל האחים וברשות אביהם. ושמעון ולוי רצו להנקם מהם והרגו כל אנשי העיר ועל כן היה כעס יעקב שארר אפם על שהרגו אנשי העיר אשר לא חטאו לו והראוי להם שיהרגו שכם לבדו. וזהו מה שאמר הכתוב: ויענו בני יעקב את שכם ואת חמור אביו במרמה וידברו אשר טמא את דינה אחותם כי כולם הסכימו לדבר לו במרמה בעבור הנבלה שעשה להם.
So Yaakov Avinu signed off on the plan to happen bemirmah, so they’d be vulnerable to save Dinah, maybe, maybe he also consented to killing Shechem. But Yaakov Avinu never envisioned, never suspected that they had in mind to do more than that and that’s what the anger is later. Okay. The Rambam’s... ואיך עשו בני יעקב הצדיקים המעשה הזה לשפוך דם נקי והרמב"ם בספר שופטים אמר שבני נח מצווים על הדינים והוא להושיב דיינים בכל פלך ופלך לדון בשש מצוות שלהם ובן נח שעבר על אחת מהן הנה הוא נהרג בסייף וראה כל אחד שעבר על אחת מהן ולא דנוהו והרגו הרי זה ראוי ועל כן נתחייבו כל בעלי שכם הריגה אשר שכם גזל והם ראו וידעו ולא דנוהו.
And the words of the Rambam are right in my eyes because if so Yaakov Avinu would have to be first in this to kill them. If so, why the anger at his sons to curse them after some time and to punish them in dividing them in Israel? Or they were clean and did a mitzvah and trusted in God and He saved them. Okay so let’s stop here for a second. So the Ramban’s taina is the Rambam does too good a job of defending Shimon and Levi because now it becomes incomprehensible why Jacob objected to their behavior. Let’s skip a little bit. Did you see what it says? אבל עניין שכם כי בני יעקב בעבור שהיו אנשי שכם רשעים ודמם חשוב בעיניהם כמים רצו להנקם מהם בחרב נוקמת והרגו המלך וכל אנשי עירו. ועבדותם ושרים על ידותם. ואין הברית אשר נימולו אנשי בניהם למומה כי היה להכניסם לעבודת השם. ויעקב אמר להם כאן כי הביאוהו בסכנה שנאמר
achartem oti l'havisheni. v'zeh she'amar ארור אפם כי עז ועברתם כי קשתה על חמס אנשי העיר שאמרו להם במעמד ובישוב איתכם והיינו לעם אחד והיו בוחרים ושברו בדם ודיברם אולי ישובו להשם הרגו אותם חינם כי לא הרעו להם כלל.
Okay let's make that let's stop there. So then this is it's a pele here in the Ramban. Lich'ora the pshat the simple pshat of the defense for the Rambam is as follows. The Rambam says that Shimon v'Levi didn't kill innocent people. That all the anshei Shechem were oveir on the שבע מצוות בני נח. The seventh of the שבע מצוות בני נח is dinim. For the Rambam dinim means to prosecute the other six. It means more than this also maybe we'll come back to that bli neder. But it includes prosecuting the other six of the שבע מצוות בני נח. But the ben Noach is oveir avoda zara ben Noach is oveir eiver min hachai he's shofech damim etc. So then the mitzvas dinim requires the other bnei Noach to be dan him. So all of anshei Shechem were oveir on that. So m'meila אזהרתן זו היא מיתתן. Right? The Gemara in Sanhedrin tells us by ben Noach that אזהרתן זו היא מיתתן. For each of the machlokes different deios in the Amora'im but the view that the Rambam accepts l'halacha that by each of the שבע מצוות בני נח by virtue of the azhara that implies a chiyuv misa. So that's what the Rambam says don't think that Shimon v'Levi killed innocent people. They were killing people chayavei misa. Now if you want to know why is Yaakov Avinu upset? Yaakov Avinu it's mefurash in the pasuk why Yaakov Avinu is upset. Achartem oti l'havisheni as the pasuk goes עכרתם אותי להבאישני ביושב הארץ בכנעני ובפריזי ואני מתי מספר ונאספו עלי והכוני ונשמדתי אני וביתי. איתא משל למה הדבר דומה.
Let's say you have a חולה שיש בו סכנה. And the doctor appropriately instructs him not to fast on Yom Kippur. And he אף על פי כן insists no I can't eat on Yom Kippur and he fasts on Yom Kippur. So was he mkayem a mitzva in fasting? Adaraba he was oveir aveira. There's no mitzva kiyum there in his fasting he was oveir aveira. So the answer for the Rambam is that Yaakov Avinu isn't he's not arguing with Shimon v'Levi as to whether or not the anshei Shechem chayavei misa. Maskim they're chayavei misa. But it's not דוחה כל התורה כולה. It's not docheh pikuach nefesh to carry out that chiyuv to kill these bnei Noach who are nischayavu misa is not docheh pikuach nefesh. ונאספו עלי והכוני ונשמדתי אני וביתי. And the pele is that the Ramban himself says that within his own pshat. Right the Ramban himself says that Bnei Yaakov wanted to avenge what was done to Dinah. And what does Yaakov say to them? Yeah they were a bunch of resha'im. Right? In the interim part of what we skipped the Ramban says you don't have to go indict them for dinim they were m'galei arayos and ovdei avoda zara and avada they were resha'im. But hevi'uhu b'sakana. So the same way he's going to say that so what does the Ramban want from the Rambam? Lich'ora that's the simple pshat and the Rambam is right. It's actually very meduyak. The lashon haRambam is at the end of perek tes in Hilchos Melachim that the Ramban is quoting כיצד הן מצווין על הדינים חייבין להושיב דיינים ושופטים בכל פלך ופלך לדון בשש מצוות אלו
skipping ומפני זה נתחייבו כל בעלי שכם הריגה שהרי שכם גזל
he kidnapped Dinah שהרי שכם גזל והם ראו וידעו ולא דנוהו. So the Rambam right the Rambam doesn't say u'mipnei zeh. He could've said ומפני זה הרגו שמעון ולוי כל בעלי שכם. He bedafke avoids talking about Shimon and Levi because the Rambam's not exonerating Shimon and Levi. He's saying don't think nebach, don't think nebach the poor anshei Shechem, these innocent people got killed. No, no poor innocent people got killed. They were resha'im and chayavei misah. But he's take not exonerating Shimon and Levi because that's what Yaakov Avinu said. But it was pikuach nefesh. So it's like fasting on Yom Kippur l'havdil, but it's not exactly like that. We'll see in a minute. There's a just digressing for a moment in terms of the moshal. In the biography of Rav Yaakov Kamenetsky, so the story is told. I think this was when he was a rov in Europe, yeah. That in the town, the city, I'm not sure what it was where Rav Yaakov was the rov, so there was such a case. There was a חולה שיש בו סכנה and the doctors forbade him from fasting on Yom Kippur. And Rav Yaakov endorsed what they said. And this person ignored the medical advice, ignored the psak and he fasted and he died. And it says in the biography that Rav Yaakov refused to go to the levaya. No one should think that what he did was some kind of midas chasidus. They should realize that what he did was terrible. If he was mechuyav to eat then he should've eaten. So there's a pshat in the Ramban that they're chayavei misah that you you can't prosecute them because you're scared of what their friends might do? Didn't he point out in the beginning talking about that you can't be yoreh hora'ah because what, you know, like because of the sakana? Right, and there's a Sifrei on לא תגורו מפני איש maybe. Maybe. Is that true? Maybe a dayan to be ma'amid din can't back down even in the face of sakanas nefashos. There's a Sifrei on לא תגורו מפני איש maybe says that, maybe says that. But lechora that's not the teretz for the that doesn't explain the Ramban's hasaga on the Rambam because he himself is going to say the same thing. I mean he himself says that Yaakov Avinu's objection to what they did was the sakana. So the Ramban's objection is the Ramban would say the same thing. What did the Rambam mean when he says ומפני זה נתחייבו כל בעלי שכם הריגה? He's just telling you and the Ramban says don't think Shimon and Levi killed innocent people. Shimon and Levi didn't kill innocent people. They killed a bunch of resha'im. So do you agree with the Ramban that dina d'malchusa dina means that everyone is chayav misah if they don't prosecute a criminal? Well that's the middle part bli neder hopefully we'll hopefully we'll get to it. That's part of what we skipped but hopefully we'll get to that in the end. He doesn't think they would be chayav. He doesn't think that would have been grounds for them being chayav misah. That makes sense why he's just... no but he still thinks that they're chayav misah for avodah zarah and giluy arayos and the Ramban didn't think they were Chasidei Umos Ha'olam either. Tonight, so what we're going to see. Now the kasha in the Ramban, but then he saw also a kasha in the Ramban because lechora, if the answer for the Ramban is that he's not exonerating Shimon and Levi, he's just explaining that Shimon and Levi killed people who are chayav misa, but if again, if the pshat for the Ramban in the psukim is what pshuto shel mikra says, Yaakov v'tzoveh v'omar, Yaakov Avinu's objection was that ונאספו עלי והכוני ונשמדתי אני וביתי. So then kushyos as in our moshal lechora of Yom Kippur, so what did the Rambam accomplish? So why weren't Shimon and Levi guilty of murder? Because there was no mitzvah for them to kill the anshei Shechem mitzad sakanas nefashos. So what did the Rambam accomplish with his with his hesber? The teretz lechora is as follows: That there is a Gemara in Sanhedrin in the 80th perek and the Rambam quotes it bahalacha in hilchos mamrim that if you have a gavra ktila, one of the definitions of a gavra ktila is מי שנגמר דינו למיתה. Let's say you have someone and the Sanhedrin was mechayev him misa. They had all the ושפטו העדה והצילו העדה, at the end they were mechayev him misa for one of the he was over in one of the misos beis din, eidim v'hasra and they were mechayev him misa. And then someone else comes and kills him. Someone else comes and kills him. So the din is that person is patur because ein lo damim. So the emese is, so it's not entirely like the moshal of Yom Kippur. Yaakov Avinu's taina on Shimon and Levi is you shouldn't have endangered our survival to kill them. Shimon and Levi, so ein hachi nami, and that's what the pasuk says and that works well according to the Rambam also. But what the Rambam says is don't think Shimon and Levi were guilty of murder. They weren't guilty of murder and that's why Yaakov Avinu doesn't confront them with that. Shimon and Levi were guilty of endangering zera Yaakov, they weren't guilty of shefichas damim because because of the following combination: A, nis'chaivu the anshei Shechem hariga, nis'chaivu all baalei Shechem hariga. They were, Shimon and Levi made a gmar din on them. There was a gmar din on them. Shimon, the anshei Shechem chayavem, chayavem hariga. It's true that if there's pikuach nefash so then you shouldn't carry it out, but that doesn't change the fact that since they're chayavem misa that they have a din of gavra ktila and it's not shefichas damim if you do kill them. So basof shelo davar, the Rambam did successfully explain to us that Shimon and Levi were not shofech dam, mei'idach gisa he still understands what Yaakov Avinu's taina was. And according to the Rambam it's very good. In in Parshas Vayechi, we'll leave that for now. Okay, fine. What do you do with the Ramban? Ramban has gone palmah, what do you do with the Ramban? So maybe let's backtrack in the Ramban a few lines from before aval inyan Shechem and read from ומה יבקש בהן הרב החיוב. ומה יבקש בהן הרב החיוב,
what's the Rambam searching? The Ramban's trying to get them for tax evasion. What's he searching for a chiyuv for the anshei Shechem before she'ol... מה שהיו עובדי עבודה זרה ומגלי עריות ועושים כל תועבות השם היו ומה היה צלח עליהם וקמו והרגום בחרב נקם וגמול ועשו גילוי עריות ככל התועבות האלה וכולי אבל שאין הדבר מסור ליעקב ובניו לעשות בהם הדין.
Okay so what's that line? The avanta of the Ramban is correct that the Anshei Shechem were chayavei misa, not because of dinim, the Ramban doesn't think that's true, but avanta avanta they're chayavei misa of the avoda zara and gilui arayos, but אין הדבר מסור ליעקב ובניו. So the simple pshat is because of the sakana involved. Okay let's go veiter with Inyan Shechem. Let's reread this. Aval Inyan Shechem כי בני יעקב בעבור שהיו אנשי שכם רשעים ודמם נחשב להם כמים רצו להינקם מהם בחרב נוקמת והרגו המלך וכל עיר כדי עבד אביו ושרים ומשמעתו ואין הברית אשר נימולו נחשב בעיניהם לכלום כי היה חילול הקודש.
Okay let's stop there. Let's also reread for a minute please from what the first part of the Ramban right after he finished quoting the Rambam. והן הדברים האלה נכונים בעיניי שכן היה יעקב אבינו חייב להיות קודם בדבר המיתה אם פחד מהם לעשות בהם הדין במעמדם
ve'anshei Shechem bechozkam והנה הם זכו ועשו מצווה ודבקו באלוקים בדיבורם. So the Ramban saw, consistent mafli. So lemayseh if you have to summarize, so what's the difference between the Ramban's explanation for what Shimon and Levi did and Yaakov Avinu's objection and the Rambam's? What's the difference? The Ramban is saying they should have had the din to do it in the inyan of the Ramban, the Ramban is saying they should have had the din to do it. Excellent. So the Ramban understands, at least this is the Ramban's understanding of the Rambam, that the Rambam is explaining that Shimon and Levi were carrying out the mitzva of giving misa le'mi she'mechuyav misa. That's what Shimon and Levi are doing. And Shimon and Levi are executing the mitzva of giving misa le'mi she'mechuyav misa, right? Well, by contrast, the Ramban says no, אין הדבר מסור ליעקב ובניו לעשות בהם הדין. And Shimon and Levi agreed with that, that there was no mitzva incumbent upon them and they were not setting out to fulfill a mitzva of giving misa le'mi she'mechuyav misa. For the Ramban, what the fact that they were mechuyavei misa was why בעבור שהיו אנשי שכם רשעים ודמם נחשב להם כמים רצו להינקם מהם בחרב נוקמת.
It was to avenge what happened to Dinah. That was legitimate, that wasn't disproportionate according to Shimon and Levi because lemayseh they're a bunch of reshaim and דמם נחשב להם כמים. But lemayseh for the Ramban what Shimon and Levi had done. avenging from these anshei rasha what was done to Dinah. For the Ramban, על פי הבנת הרמב"ן, what Shimon and Levi are doing is they're carrying out a mitzvah of giving מיתה למי שמחויב מיתת בית דין. Yeah, you see them? After asinu hachi, so now the Ramban, l'shitoso, let's one more time please to be read back at the ואין הדברים האלה נכונים. ואין הדברים האלה נכונים, b'einai, שאם כן היה יעקב אבינו חייב להיות קודם ושוחט במשתה.
Again, because the Ramban understands the Rambam to be saying that Shimon and Levi are correctly carrying out the mitzvah of giving מיתה למי שמחויב מיתה. Continue please. שאם כך הדין למה תפחדו מן האומה העזה ההיא, ואחרי כמה זמן בעבורם במטמוני, ולא היו צריכים לעשות מצווה ולבטוח באלוהים בצינעה.
What's those last two words? Livtoach b'elokim. Trusted in God. Ah, so the Ramban holds, Ramban holds l'shitoso. The Ramban holds that if Shimon and Levi are doing a mitzvah, so then they have a right to invoke bitachon and not be deterred by sakana. If Shimon and Levi, if they're doing a mitzvah להעניש מי שמחויב מיתה, so then Shimon and Levi are being boteiach b'Hashem and that's legitimate in context of a mitzvah even though objectively, even though objectively there is a sakana because l'm'sei mispar we were so terribly outnumbered. But אף על פי כן in context of a mitzvah the Ramban holds that you have a right to invoke middas bitachon. But if all you're doing is you're avenging, it's not a mitzvah, for that you have no right to invoke a middas bitachon. For that, and that's why the Ramban thinks that within his pshat the pasuk reads that Yaakov Avinu is objecting, "You exposed us to sakana." But within the Rambam's pshat he says it doesn't read, because within the Rambam's pshat it's legitimate. What's the l'shitoso? The l'shitoso is the famous Ramban in Parshas Bechukosai. Ha'klal, v'zeh ha'klal, כי בהיות ישראל שלמים והם רבים לא יתנהג עניינם בטבע כלל לא בגופם ולא בארצם ולא בכללם ולא ביחידים בהם כי בירך השם לחמם ומימם ויסיר מחלה מקרבם עד שלא יצטרכו לרופא ולא להתנהג בדרך מדרכי הרפואות כלל כמו שאמר כי אני השם רופאך.
So again, the context of the famous Ramban, as you all know, is he's talking about refuah. But the general background to why to what the Ramban famously says about refuah is again, could you re-read the beginning again please? Ha'klal, ha'klal, כי בהיות ישראל שלמים והם רבים לא יתנהג עניינם בטבע כלל. לא יתנהג עניינם בטבע כלל.
When Yisrael are shleimim is לא יתנהג עניינם בטבע כלל. That same yesod according to the Ramban, according to the Ramban, also allows for Shimon and Levi had it been... the case that what they were setting out to do was a mitzvah, was to be mkayem a mitzvah in being meimes mechuvay misah, so then that would have made it legitimate for them to be boteiach in Hashem. But to do to avenge which is not a chiyuv to avenge. So then there you can't invoke middas habitachon. Ul'umas that famous very cryptic Ramban, so the Rambam very famously in Peirush Hamishnayos in Nedarim compares he compares refuah to mezonos. He says the same way it's not a chesron bitachon that a person eats breakfast. What do you have to eat breakfast for? Hashem will take care of you. What do you have to eat lunch for? Hashem will take care of you. No, a person is mechuyav to take care of himself. Beyond that Hashem will take care of you. A person has to take care of himself. So the Rambam says, so refuah is the same thing as mezonos. The same way a person it's not a chesron bitachon and a person is mechuyav to eat, so too a person is mechuyav to if he's sick, he's mechuyav to pursue avenues of refuah. A person has to do whatever he can bederech hateva, which is obviously the orientation that we assume l'halacha. Whatever there is one I don't know I have to I don't know there is one teshuva of the Avnei Nezer about that Ramban, but certainly certainly what our orientation l'halacha is is question is does the Ramban even mean it bazman hazeh? But whatever the pshat in the Ramban is, it's not certainly not our orientation halacha l'maaseh. Our orientation is the Rambam. Al kol panim in our inyan here, so it's mamash mamash it works out perfectly. For the Ramban זה הכלל אין מקום לביטחון במקום סכנה. Can't invoke bitachon bimkom sakana. So that's what Yaakov Avinu says to Shimon and Levi, yes, they were mechuyavei misah anshei Shechem. All the anshei Shechem are mechuyavei misah for what happened. But l'maaseh l'maaseh it doesn't justify having endangered all of us. The Ramban and that's why the Ramban is so meduyak. He doesn't justify Shimon and Levi. He says Shimon and Levi didn't kill innocent people. But im khein nimeitzo the Ramban leaves it as the psukim say that they were wrong in endangering themselves, their family by so doing. L'maaseh, they didn't kill innocent people because A, they were mechuyavei misah and B, killing a gavra ktila, a person is pattur, that's not considered shfichus damim. So in that sense the Ramban explains to us don't think Shimon v'Levi the shiftei Koh but shofchei damim. But me'idach gissa, they were wrong in ignoring a sakana, which is what Yaakov Avinu ta'aned against them. The Ramban doesn't like that pshat because the Ramban says if Shimon and Levi had been motivated by the mitzvah of killing mechuyavei misah, it would have been legitimate to invoke bitachon. It's only because they weren't motivated by that. They were motivated only by avenging Dinah, so then bitachon plays no role. And then they're open to the pushback from Yaakov Avinu that they shouldn't have exposed them to sakana. Okay, maybe let's try to see if we have time to fill in a little bit. So let's go back. I think it's v'al da'ati. See where v'al da'ati is where we skipped the first time. ועל דעתי הדין של בני נח אשר נצטוו עליהם אינם להושיב דיינים בכל פלך ופלך.
Which is where the Rambam seems to circumscribe it. Meaning that Dinim doesn't really add additional chiyuvim, it's just a chiyuv to enforce the other שש מצוות בני נח. אבל ציום בדינים בפני עצמם בגנבה ואונאה ועושק ושכר שכיר ובדיני השומרים ואונס ומפתה ואבות נזיקין וחובל בחברו ודיני מלווה ולווה ודיני מקח וממכר וכיוצא בהן כעניין הדינים שנצטוו ישראל ונהרג עליהם אם גנב ועשק ואנס ופיתה ובת חברו או שהדליק גדישו וחבל בו וכיוצא בהן ומכלל המצווה הזאת שיושיבו דיינין גם בכל עיר ועיר כישראל ואם לא עשו כן אינן נהרגים שזו מצוות עשה ועשה בהן ולא אמרו אלא אזהרה שלהן זו מיתתן ולא תקרא אזהרה אלא המניעה בלא תעשה.
Okay so let's stop here for a minute. The Ramban says that the dinim in addition to what the Rambam includes in dinim dinim basically means that society has to have a legal system. It has to have dinim of it has to outlaw gneiva it has to have dinim what do you do with a ganav? It has to outlaw cheating in business ona'ah it has to have dinim of what you do if ona'ah occurs. You have to have a legal system that deals with the whole gamut of daily life and the things that happen. Here there is a shayla what the Ramban means when he says אבל ציום בדינים בפני עצמם בגנבה ואונאה וכיוצא בהן כעניין הדינים שנצטוו ישראל.
The pashuter pshat in the Ramban is that what he means is that they have to have a legal system lav davka that American law has to say that a ganav pays kafel but ebbes there has to be something in American law about what you do with a ganav there has to be some reasonable punitive action against a ganav. There has to be some redress for a person who was meuneh who was cheated in business. But lav davka that the dinim which bnei noach will legislate have to correspond to the dinei yisrael. That's the pashuter pshat in the Ramban. If that's the case then he disagrees the Rama has an extraordinary extraordinary chiddush halacha l'maaseh. He writes it in the teshuvos harama. The Rama thinks it's really a machlokes amora'im but the way we pasken the Rama says no what dinim means he has the same approach as the Ramban that dinim for bnei noach means they have to have a legal system. But for the Rama it means choshen mishpat. bnei noach are obligated in all the dinim every se'if katan in the shach in choshen mishpat is part of שבע מצוות בני נח. Again if you would read the Ramban that way so keinyan hadinim would then mean it would mean mamash the same mamash the same dinim. The Rama writes this the Rama had a famous case where there was a din torah between a nochri and a Jew. So the Rama says before you can proceed to the din torah you have to first establish according to what legal system are you going to pasken this din torah. Do you pasken על פי דין תורה or no maybe the nochri has a right to say I'm under no obligation to have conducted myself in accordance with din torah you have to be dan me על פי דינא דמלכותא. So that's where the Rama says that we pasken he makes it totally on what the makor for the what the remez in the pasuk is for dinim but we pasken that the sheva mitzvos. the שבע מצוות בני נח like the Ramban, again, that dinim includes having a legal system, but we pasken that it means not their own legal system, not that they can be mechadesh their own dinim for gneivah, for ona'ah, and for etc. No, it means mamish the dinei Torah. And then he goes on to pasken the din Torah between the Jew and the nochri על פי דין תורה.