Good morning, Rabosai. Let's see the first Ramban here in Parshas Vayeishev. וישב יעקב בארץ מגורי אביו. כי אמר שאלופי עשו yashvu be'eretz achuzasam, klomar, הארץ שלקחו להם לאחוזת עולם. So the various heads of the branches of Eisov's family so they settled in the land that they had acquired for themselves meaning outside of Eretz Yisrael. ויעקב ישב גר כאביו בארץ לא להם אלא לכנען. Yaakov, as Yitzchak before him, lived in a land where he didn't, he wasn't sovereign, but rather at this point in history Kanaan was ruling over Eretz Yisrael. Vehakavana what the Torah intends to convey, להגיד כי הם יצחק יעקב בוחרים לגור בארץ הנבחרת, A, so they opted, meaning Yitzchak Avinu, Yaakov Avinu could also have found land somewhere where they could have been in control. They didn't have to subject themselves to the rule of others. But that would have been outside of Eretz Yisrael. So when given this choice between being sovereign outside of Eretz Yisrael or living in Eretz Yisrael, so they opted כי הם בוחרים לגור בארץ הנבחרת. The Emes is, excuse me just one second. The Rambam quotes lahalacha from a Gemara at the end of Kesuvos, in the Rambam it's Perek Hey of Melachim Halacha Yud Beis, but it's a Gemara in Kesuvos, the end of Kesuvos, that לעולם ידור אדם בארץ ישראל אפילו בעיר שרובה גויים ואל ידור בחוץ לארץ ואפילו בעיר שרובה ישראל.
So here the variable, the contrast is not sovereign to a lack of sovereignty, but it also highlights that Eretz Yisrael trumps what would otherwise in a different context be a value. In the context of the Rambam it's who one's neighbors are and here in the context of the Ramban it's a question of having sovereignty. והכוונה להגיד כי הם בוחרים לגור בארץ הנבחרת, A, B, ושנתקיים בהם כי גר יהיה זרעך בארץ לא להם ולא בעשו.
What Hakadosh Baruch Hu told Avraham Avinu in the Bris Bein Habesarim כי גר יהיה זרעך בארץ לא להם, so that nevuah which Hakadosh Baruch Hu granted was fulfilled in Yaakov velo be'Eisov, כי ביעקב לבדו יקרא להם זרע as Hakadosh Baruch Hu said כי ביצחק יקרא לך זרע. What this illustrates, I mean there are many such illustrations, but what this illustrates is the following, already in Bris Bein Habesarim at the dawn of our history, at the dawn of the history of. the privilege and destiny of being the am hanivchar involves dealing with adversity, with suffering, with trials and tribulations and the two are inseparable. One can't identify with or want to tap into the promise of am hanivchar without being ready to make the sacrifices that that are involved. The havtocha of Eretz Yisrael was preceded by כי גר יהיה זרעך בארץ לא להם ועבדום וענו אותם ארבע מאות שנה
and and they're they they comprise one one fabric. Sometimes we want the we want the promise and and the goal without the without the sacrifice, we want it nationally collectively and in our personal lives, we want it personally. We want to know a lot of Torah but we don't necessarily want to be moseir nefesh to liknos Torah. And from the dawn of our history Hakadosh Boruch Hu said no, the the accomplishment and and the status and the attainment of am hanivchar is always bound up with with sacrifice, with mesiras nefesh. The Torah here is describing how Yaakov Avinu was moseir nefesh to live be'eretz lo lohem and and he made the sacrifice, which is why the the promise and and the attainment could later materialize. Let's take a look in pasuk ches rabbosai here in the Ramban. המלוך תמלוך עלינו אם משול תמשול בנו. Peirush Rabbi Avraham, the Ibn Ezra: אנחנו נשימך מלך עלינו? Again, it's a heh, it's a heh of of a question, right? Hamoloch timloch aleinu. Peirush Rabbi Avraham: אנחנו נשימך מלך עלינו או אתה תמשול בנו בחזקה. Meaning that the Ibn Ezra explains what's the difference between hamoloch timloch or moshul timshul. So the Ibn Ezra says that moloch timloch means willingly. One is a melech when the people willingly, voluntarily mamlich the ruler. One is a moshel when he imposes his rule upon them, when he when he beyad chazaka imposes his sovereignty over them. ה' אלהי ישראל מלך ומלכותו בכל משלה. ה' אלהי ישראל מלך
meaning that over Yisrael Hakadosh Boruch Hu is melech. We willingly and and voluntarily ממליך הקדוש ברוך הוא. But even over those who those vast parts of humanity that don't do so is Malkhuso bakol mosholo. HaKadosh Baruch Hu rules b'chozka even when his rule is not invited as it were, rachmana litzlan, is not welcome as it were. And the mitzva of malkhiyos, the Gaon also says later says this same vort as the Ibn Ezra had said earlier. The mitzva of malkhiyos in Rosh Hashana is that we should embrace malkhus, not just sort of begrudgingly, rachmana litzlan, begrudgingly acknowledge, but we should voluntarily embrace and welcome malkhus shamayim. Ramban himself goes on to suggest a different pshat in the pasuk, ויותר נכון דעת אונקלוס, to distinguish, to differentiate hamoloch timloch from moshol timshol. So the Ramban prefers Onkelos's approach: התיהיה מלך עלינו או שלטון מושל בנו? Shilton moshel banu sounds like someone as Yosef ultimately became, someone who's not quite the melech, but nevertheless who rules, such as a viceroy. כי לשניהם אדם משתחוה. The notion of being a subject and having to prostrate oneself would be not only to the melech, but even to the viceroy, even to the moshel. או תהיה עלינו לעולם, that's what the brothers are saying. You'll never be lo melech and v'lo moshel, and not even a moshel. Pasuk tes vav. וימצאהו איש והנה תעה בשדה. So the ish, Rashi says the ish is Gavriel, finds Yosef and he's wandering around in the field. לומר כי הוא תועה מן הדרך ולא היה יודע אנה ילך.
V'nichnas basadeh. Why did he wander into the field? כי במקום המרעה היה מבקשם. He's looking for them in a pasture where the tzon could be grazing. V'yaarich hakatuv bazei. Why is this worthy of being recorded in the Chumash? להגיד כי סיבות רבות באו אליו שהיה ראוי לחזור לו.
Right? There were a lot of obstacles thrown in Yosef's path, sufficiently so that one would have easily expected or anticipated that he would have given up and he would have gone back to Yaakov and said, I couldn't find them. אבל הכל סבל לכבוד אביו. But Yosef was not deterred by obstacle after obstacle because of the mitzva of kibud av. How easily or quickly a person is deterred from doing something, the Ramban is explaining, is a reflection of how deeply committed he is to doing it. If to give a trivial, light example, so you're a light example, not trivial, light example. Your parents ask you to go to the corner store and pick up a quart of milk. So you go to the store and they're out of milk. So the question is, do you go back home and you tell them, you know, sorry, they were out of milk, or do you go to another store which is half a mile away? Im timtzei lomar, assuming they're not going to be worried about you, text them, they're not worried about why you're not coming back. So you text them that you're going to the other store. You get to the other store, apparently some of the cows are on strike, so they're also out of milk. So again, so okay, I tried twice already. The next store is two miles away. Do you go, or no? Enough, I tried twice. How easily or quickly a person is deterred, how soon a person gives up, I was doing it just to be yotzei. Okay, just to be yotze I go to the first store. I'm a little bit committed to it, I go to the second store. Or no, I'm totally committed to it, I do what's necessary, what's possible to try and make it happen. And it's true in so many contexts, so many contexts how soon a person gives up or doesn't give up is a measure of how committed the person is. Ulehodi’einu od the Ramban continues, the Torah also narrates this to teach us כי הגזרה אמת והחריצות שקר, a famous phrase, כי הגזרה אמת והחריצות שקר, which means that again, literally, Hakadosh Baruch Hu's decree is emes and emes in the sense not only of truth, but true in the sense of it endures, it prevails, right? Emes, we translate emes as truth, which is a correct translation, but emes also has the sense of being real. Right, what's imaginary is not true, is not real, right? ki hagezeira emes, gezeira is true and real, Hakadosh Baruch Hu's gezeira is true and real, and charitzus, diligence, when it seeks, if it seeks to contradict a gezeira, again, the Ramban is not, we discussed at the beginning of Parshas Vayishlach, he's obviously not dismissing hishtadlus, he means charitzus, diligence which goes against the gezeira. כי הגזרה אמת והחריצות שקר, again, false, but is not real, doesn't endure, isn't sustainable. כי זימן לו הקדוש ברוך הוא, Hakadosh Baruch Hu had decreed that Yosef should be sold into slavery, no matter how many seeming obstacles there were to prevent that from playing out and materializing, it was going to happen because כי הגזרה אמת והחריצות שקר. כי זימן לו הקדוש ברוך הוא מורה דרך שלא מדעתו,
Hakadosh Baruch Hu sent him a guide shelo mida'ato lehavi'o beyadam. ולזה נתכוונו רבותינו ואמרו כי האנשים האלה הם מלאכים. Meaning that there was a mission, שלא על חנם היה כל הסיפור הזה להודיענו כי עצת השם היא תקום.
Good, let's see pasuk yud-zayin, the next Ramban. So what is the ish, the mysterious ish tell Yosef? ויאמר האיש נסעו מזה כי שמעתי אומרים נלכה דותינה וילך יוסף אחר אחיו וימצאם בדותן.
Nas'u mizeh, Ramban begins by quoting Rashi, הסיעו עצמן מן האחוה. They've distanced themselves from any feelings of brotherhood, they've renounced brotherhood. neilcha Dosaina, לבקש לך נכלי דתות שימיתוך בהם, they're looking to come up with all kinds of strategies and conspiracies to be able to put you to death. Ulifi peshuto, shem makom Dosan is a name of a place, ואין מקרא יוצא מידי פשוטו lashon Rabbeinu Shlomo. Ve'ein hakavana leraboseinu when Chazal offer the pshat of נלכה דותינה לבקש לך נכלי דתות, Chazal don't intend שיפרש לו האיש נסעו מן האחוה והלכו להערים עליך דינין ותרמיות.
It doesn't mean that Gabriel spelled this out for Yosef, שאם כן בידו היה נמנע מללכת והיה מסכן בעצמו. If Yosef had been told, you know, they're plotting to ambush you and to kill you, so he certainly would not have gone. Aval hakavana lahem what Chazal intend is כי האיש גבריאל אשר הגיד לו, higid emes and אמר לשון משמש לשני פנים. He He said something which could be understood in on two levels in two different ways, and in this instance v'shneihem emes. We'll see shortly b'li neder that sometimes a person can say something which is meshamesh lishnei panim, one is emes, one is not emes. But in this instance, v'shneihem emes. והוא לא הבין הנסתר בו. Joseph was not in a position to understand the more esoteric that Dothan didn't just mean the name of a place, but it meant נכלי דתות של מסוכסך, and nas'u mizeh didn't just mean that they've they've traveled beyond, but it means that they've forsaken brotherhood. והוא לא הבין הנסתר בו והלך אחר הנגלה ממנו. So Joseph was guided by his by the exoteric meaning of what Gabriel told him. וימצאם בדותן כאשר אמר לו. V'darshu zeh what prompts Chazal to this drasha? מפני שהאיש הזה הוא מלאך. If so, he knows where they are, why does he say they are in Dothan? Why does he say that they were going towards Dothan? No, Gabriel knows exactly where they are. ואם כן יודע הוא אנה הם ולמה לא אמר הנם בדותן? ואמר כמסתפק ששמע מהם שילכו שם ואיני יודע אנה הם עתה.
So to because of this difficulty if you only take the pasuk al pi pshuto, ולכן עשו מדרש במאמרו. This is a very, very important yesod. Often we find drashos Chazal. So for instance, if you go back to the beginning of Parshat Vayishlach, I don't think we commented on this then. So Rashi says on Im Lavan garti, at the very beginning of Parshat Vayishlach, take a look rabosai, Im Lavan garti. So Rashi says the pshuto shel mikra is לא נעשיתי שר וחשוב. I didn't become some kind of officer, I didn't become a dignitary, a VIP, ela ger, a stranger. אינך כדאי לשנוא אותי על ברכות אביך שברכני הוה גביר לאחיך שהרי לא נתקיימה בי.
Davar acher, garti b'gematria Taryag, כלומר עם לבן הרשע גרתי ותריג מצות שמרתי ולא למדתי ממעשיו הרעים.
The world asks the kashya, did Yaakov Avinu really think that Esav has been lying awake at night worrying about whether Yaakov's been putting on not only his tefillin shel Rashi but תפילין של רבנו תם, and is he is he holding strong by his musar seder in Mesillat Yesharim and Shaarei Teshuvah? Presumably Esav is not too is not overly concerned with these questions. So why is Yaakov Avinu volunteering Im Lavan garti and v'taryag mitzvos shamarti? So the psat here is as follows. Again, our Ramban's yesod that you find in Chumash that people will say leshonos again meshamesh lishnei panim. Again, in the context here in Vayeshev it's v'shneihem emes. But lav davka the shnei panim is always that way. So l'chora what Rashi, what Chazal mean here is as follows. Let's let's rewind to the first psat Rashi says. How can Yaakov Avinu say such a thing? Why isn't it a chilul Hashem to say that Yitzchak Avinu gave me a bracha and the bracha was not nitkayem? How can Yaakov Avinu say such a thing? How can he say such a thing? So the teretz is as follows. Excuse me, just one second. There's a din in Yoreh De'ah in סימן קנז. אסור לאדם לומר שהוא עובד כוכבים כדי שלא יהרגהו.
A person cannot, a Jew cannot b'fiv u'mitzcho say that he's an oved avodah zarah even to save his life. That's in the Mechaber there. The Rambam. The Rama says as follows: ואף על גב דאסור לומר שהוא עובד כוכבים meaning he's concurring with that psak of the mechaber. יוכל לומר להם לשון דמשתמע לתרי אפין. He can say something which can be understood in different ways, so that they will misunderstand it to mean that he's an oved kochavim, but it legitimately can be understood differently, and that he can do to save his life. So the pshat is that that's exactly what this Chazal, what Rashi is quoting means. Like our Ramban says the yesod that sometimes we find in Chumash when people are speaking, they speak intentionally לשון המשתמש לשני פנים. Okay, so Gavriel is doing it for his reasons, for different reasons in our example, but over here the pshat is: what does Yaakov mean when Yaakov says im Lavan garti? So what Yaakov means is taryag mitzvos shamarti. Yaakov is not, chas veshalom, he doesn't intend to cast aspersions or to belittle the bracha that Yitzchak Avinu gave him. But ela mah, this is a sakana. This is exactly the case that the Rama's talking about. Ela mah, Yaakov Avinu does intentionally say it בלשון המשתמש לשני פנים. He does intentionally express himself in a way that Eisav could interpret, could misunderstand and take it in a way that he'll be appeased. And lichora, we had it a second time in Parshas Vayishlach. Just one sec, yeah, remember we had the Ramban we saw last week on pasuk hey? So the Ramban was commenting on Yaakov Avinu employing the leshonos of כה אמר עבדך יעקב וכה תאמרון לאדני לעשו. So the Ramban said here in pasuk hey: ודע כי הכבוד הזה שהיה יעקב עושה לאחיו בפחדתו לאמר אדני ועבדך בעבור כי המנהג בצעירי היחס לתת מעלה וכבוד על הבכור כאילו הוא אביו.
That the practice in antiquity was that which the Emes is, the Torah itself really mandates, is that the younger brother relates to the bechor and confers honor on the bechor comparable to that which is conferred upon a father. So how does a person refer to his father? As Adoni Avi. That's a correct way of referring to one's father, Adoni Avi. והנה יעקב לקח בכורתו וברכתו ועשו שוטם אותו עליהם ועתה הוא יאמר לו כאלו אין המכירה היא אצלו כלום וכי הוא נוהג בו כבכור ואב להוציא המשטמה מלבו.
So itachen that the pshat in this Ramban also is that it's לשון המשתמש לשני פנים. That on the one hand, it's true, Yaakov Avinu purchased the bechora, and avada Yaakov Avinu held that that mechira was sharir vekayam, was certainly something that was irreversible and was very, very significant. אף על פי כן, biologically Eisav was the older brother, right? Biologically Eisav was the firstborn. So Yaakov Avinu says, כה תאמרון לאדני לעשו, כה אמר עבדך יעקב. All Yaakov intends, לשון המשתמש לשני פנים. What Yaakov intends is, I have the bechora, I have the bracha, but אף על פי כן, lemaiseh biologically, he's the older brother, biologically he's the firstborn. When I purchased the bechora, I wasn't interested in his calling me Adon and my not having to refer to myself as eved, I was interested in... Just in all the spiritual implications of the bechorah. So כה אמר עבדך יעקב כה תאמרו לאדני לעשו, that's what Yaakov intends. Yaakov obviously knows full well that Eisav may and hopefully will misinterpret, but that's that same din in Shulchan Aruch, it's the same im Lavan garti that often a lashon is meshamesh shnei panim. And when you find for instance, again here in the Ramban it doesn't present that way, but when you find for instance in the Rashis of garti or in our Rashi of nasu mizeh and neilcha Dosanyah, two pshatim, they're not alternatives. They're the shnei panim which the lashon is meshamesh, and again in our case in Parshas Vayeishev it's shneihem emes and in earlier in Parshas Vayishlach it's echad meihem emes, echad meihem sheker, but that's exactly that din in Shulchan Aruch. That's an entirely legitimate thing to do under the circumstances. Now let's see a little bit of the Ramban here in Pasuk Chaf-Beis. Do you see what the Ramban has וכתב רש"י ממשמע שנאמר והבור ריק on Pasuk Chaf-Beis? וכתב רש"י ממשמע שנאמר והבור ריק איני יודע שאין בו מים מה תלמוד לומר אין בו מים מים אין בו אבל נחשים ועקרבים יש בו.
Lashon Rashi midevrei raboseinu, right, in the Chanukah Sugyos, meinyana deyoma. ואם כן היו הנחשים והעקרבים בחורי הבור. Again, al pi pshuto clearly what it means is that the snakes, the scorpions, there were crevices in the bottom of the bor where the brothers couldn't see it. או שהיה עמוק ולא ידעו בהם, or the bor was so deep that they couldn't see to the bottom of the bor. שאילו היו רואים אותם, had they seen the nechashim ve'akrabim and velo yaziku leYosef, that Yosef was thrown down and maybe he even landed on some of the nechashim ve'akrabim, but even if he didn't, the fact that he wasn't immediately killed by these poisonous reptiles היה הדבר ברור להם שנעשה לו נס גדול ושהוא צדיק גמור.
Had they been aware, then they would have recognized the magnitude of the nes gadol which indicates that he was a tzaddik gamur, veyadu, and they would have known כי זכותו תצילנו מכל רע, and they would have realized that he's untouchable. Ve'eich yige'u and how would they try to put their hand out against במשיח ה' אשר חפץ בו ומצילו. So the pshat is what the Ramban says, that had they seen this nes gadol that they would have recognized he was a tzaddik gamur, he's referring back to what he explained, what we saw in Parshas Vayeira on the pasuk of ki yadativ. והנכון בעיני שיהיה ידיעה בו ממש, the Ramban back in Parshas Vayeira that we saw then, שבחסידיו ישימהו אליו לדעת אותו בפרט להיות שמירתו דבקה בו תמיד.
And then the Ramban says כטעם לא יגרע מצדיק עיניו. That's what the pasuk in Iyov that Hakadosh Baruch Hu doesn't take his eye, kivyachol, he doesn't take his eyes off the tzaddik for a moment. That's what the Ramban means, shehu tzaddik gamur, meaning a tzaddik who's on a level that he's the beneficiary of this special hashgacha pratis that doesn't allow... allow for accidents, that doesn't allow for or for human bechira to affect him if Hakadosh Baruch Hu doesn't want it. So that's what the Ramban is saying, that the shivtei Kah would have recognized that if Yosef is the beneficiary of such hashgacha, such hashgacha is only for chassidei elyon. So they would have recognized their mistaken assessment of who Yosef is. Maybe we'll take a look at one more Ramban. If you take a look in Perek Lamed Chet for a moment, Pasuk Zayin. ויהי ער בכור יהודה רע בעיני השם. Lamed Chet Zayin or so. ויהי ער בכור יהודה רע בעיני השם. לא הזכיר הכתוב פשעו כאשר עשה באונן.
It doesn't, as the Torah does by Onan where the Torah tells us what the chet was. By Er, the Torah doesn't in the peshuto shel mikra. אבל אמר כי בחטאו מת. So then what's the point? If the Torah is just going to be vague, so what's the point? No, the Torah is emphasizing that he died as a result of his own sin. להודיע שלא היה זה בעונש יהודה על מכירת יוסף. It wasn't that he was being punished, that really it was a punishment for Yehuda for mechiras Yosef. Why? כי ההצלה עמדה על המכירה. As egregious a chet as the mechira was, but the fact that Yehuda saved Yosef's life. מה בצע כי נהרוג את אחינו וכסינו את דמו. So Yehuda saved Yosef's life, so those two balanced each other out, so that he didn't get, he wasn't deserving of such a terrible onesh. ולא היה בבית האבות שכול. None of the shivtei Kah or the avos lost a child זולתי בזה שהיה רע בעיני השם where the child was חייב מיתה בידי שמים because of his own aveiros. כי זרע צדיקים יבורך. ועל כן היה יעקב מתאבל על בנו ימים רבים וימאן להתנחם שהיה הדבר בעיניו עונש גדול לו מלבד אהבתו אותו.
So the Ramban here says a remarkable pshat. I think Rashi tells us, no Rashi says on vayima'en l'hitnachem that Hakadosh Baruch Hu created in the beriah that there should be a certain degree of shichcha which allows aveilim to be comforted and to be able to function and move on in life, which they're supposed to do. But Hakadosh Baruch Hu created that capacity only where the relative taka was niftar. Over here where the relative wasn't niftar, so that's why Yaakov Avinu wasn't capable of being comforted. So the Ramban says a different pshat. Ramban says that milvad ahavaso oso, it wasn't only because of that bond between Yaakov and Yosef. No, that certainly was a goreim as well for the vayima'en l'hitnachem. But additionally it's vayima'en l'hitnachem because Yaakov Avinu understood that what Yosef's, in quotation marks, death, was a punishment to him, and that's why Yaakov Avinu couldn't get over it. He couldn't get over the fact that he was guilty and deserving of such an onesh, because that's how he processed it. Meaning what the Torah is telling us wasn't true of Er and Onan, meaning that they weren't being killed as a punishment imposed upon Yehuda, that's what Yaakov Avinu, again, understood in quotation marks. And he was under the impression of torof toraf Yosef that it was a middas hadin against him and that's also why he couldn't be misnachem because of just how greatly he felt he must have sinned to trigger rachmana litzlan such an onesh. Okay, so maybe we'll stop here rabosai. A gut shabbos everyone.