Ramban on Matos and Masei

── Shiur Outline ──
(0:05) Why the Parsha Begins with Vayedaber Moshe
(1:12) Distinguishing Haforas Nedarim from Hatarras Nedarim
(2:25) Geonic Era Avoidance of Publicizing Nedarim Study
(24:15) Yishuv Ha'aretz and the Prohibition to Stay
(26:14) Thorny Neighbors: Lesikim Be'eineichem
(27:19) Modern Influences Beyond Physical Proximity
(31:11) Counting Cities of Refuge: Six plus Forty‑Two
(32:46) Sanhedrin Outside the Land and Its Limits
(33:57) Ledoroseichem: Laws Beyond the Temple
(35:07) Preventing the Land from Becoming Defiled
(37:10) Ramban on Nedarim and Their Legal Nuances
(0:00) Why Three Cities of Refuge on Each Side

AI-Generated Summary (AI can be inaccurate. Check important information):

This shiur examines the Ramban’s analysis of the laws of vows and the conquest of the land, focusing on why the Torah addresses the tribal leaders regarding Haforas Nedarim. The Ramban concludes that this specific address serves to prevent public trivialization of vows and to hint at the unique authority of a solitary expert judge in the annulment process. Additionally, the shiur explores the Ramban's view of settling the land as a formal positive commandment, alongside his explanations for the purification of Midianite vessels and the strategic distribution of cities of refuge.

1. Discretion in Nedarim — The Torah addresses the Rashei Hamatos (heads of tribes) specifically to limit public awareness of Haforas Nedarim, preventing potential lightheadedness regarding the sanctity of vows.
2. Distinct Cancellation Mechanisms — A critical distinction exists between Haforas Nedarim (performed by a father/husband), which halts a vow from that point forward, and Hataras Nedarim (performed by a sage), which uproots the vow retroactively.
3. Hidden Halacha — The concept of a sage dissolving a vow is a Halacha L'Moshe MiSinai only hinted at in the text through the phrase "lo yachel devaro" (he shall not profane his word).
4. Cheftza vs. Gavra — A neder (vow) creates a prohibition on the object (issur cheftza), whereas a shvuah (oath) creates a personal obligation on the individual (issur gavra).
5. Vows against Mitzvos — While an oath to violate a mitzvah is invalid, a neder can be binding even if it prevents a mitzvah performance by rendering the required object forbidden.
6. Purification of Vessels — The process of kashering midianite booty follows the principle of kibol'o kach polto (as it absorbs, so it expels), requiring the same medium (fire or water) that caused the original absorption.
7. Tevilas Keilim Debate — There is a significant discussion whether the immersion of vessels (Tevilas Keilim) is a Torah obligation derived from the text or a Rabbinic law with a scriptural support (asmachta).
8. Eretz Yisrael Booty — The laws of kashering were not taught during the wars with Sichon and Og because the spoils of Eretz Yisrael were temporarily permitted even if non-kosher, unlike the spoils of Midian.
9. Initiative of Gad — The tribe of Gad is mentioned before Reuven in the request for land because they were the initiators and leaders of the proposal to settle the Transjordan.
10. Menashe's Settlement — The half-tribe of Menashe joined the settlement in the Transjordan not by original request, but as volunteers to fill the large expanse of land captured.
11. Climate of Violence — The equal number of Arei Miklat (Cities of Refuge) in the Transjordan and Israel proper is attributed by Chazal to the negative spiritual climate of Gilead, which produced more murderers.
12. Judicial Continuity — The phrase "bechol moshvoteichem" teaches that while capital punishment ceased with the Temple, other judicial functions requiring semicha (ordination) continue in all locations.

What is Ramban on the Parsha | Rabbi Shlomo Friedman (Yeshivat Kerem B'Yavneh)?

Shiurim by Rabbi Shlomo Friedman in KBY.

Enjoyed? Your feedback means a lot to us. Click here to email us: https://tinyurl.com/thanksEN

Donations: https://www.kby.org/english/support-us/?id=46

The רמב"ן and the first piece,

about seven-eight lines in,

addresses the following issue:

Why is the פרשה of הפרת נדרים begin with וידבר משה אל ראשי המטות?

Why דוקא address the ראשי המטות?

The רמב"ן has two possibilities.

One possibility is that the idea of הפרת נדרים the idea that a father

and a husband could be מיפר a נדר is something that the תורה didn't

want to give too much publicity to,

because that might lead people to be מזלזל in נדרים.

Another possibility is in fact that ראשי המטות,

leaders,

have a special role in נדרים,

in that a הלכה although it normally requires three judges to be מתיר a

נדר,

nevertheless,

if there's a יחיד מומחה,

he could be מתיר נדרים.

Let's point out somewhat parenthetically that we shouldn't confuse הפרת נדרים done by the

father and the husband on one hand,

with התרת נדרים that's done by a חכם or three חכמים on the other.

These are distinct concepts.

The גמרא says for example that הפרת נדרים just stops the נדר in its

tracks,

doesn't undo the נדר from the very beginning,

מה שאין כן התרת נדרים does.

So in any case,

so let's see from וידבר משה אל ראשי המטות this is about ten lines

into the piece,

last word on line is משה in the standard printing on page ש"כא.

ת?

Yes,

ת"ט in the newer printing.

וידבר משה אל ראשי המטות כי אין צורך ללמד לכל בני ישראל שאב ובעל

יכולים להפר נדרי ענוי נפש ואולי צורך להעלם אלא חוקיהם שלא ינהגו קלות ראש

בנדרים.

There are those that suggest from the time of the גאונים there was a

period that in some ישיבות they wouldn't have מסכת נדרים as part of the

regular cycle because they didn't want to publicize that there is such a thing

as התרת נדרים,

הפרת נדרים.

שלא ינהגו קלות ראש בנדרים אבל לחכמי ישראל ראשי שבטיהם למדם המשפט וירמוז עוד

מדרש רבותינו כי לראשי המטות יד ושם בנדרים יותר משאר העדה שיחיד מומחה מתיר

נדר.

Of course the topic of the פסוקים is mainly הפרה,

not התרה,

but nevertheless the תורה hinted to some aspect of התרת נדרים.

Okay.

Now the רמב"ן points out with respect to התרת נדרים in general,

the idea that a חכם can be מתיר נדר is something which is not

clearly indicated in the פסוקים.

The פסוקים speak of הפרה,

not התרה.

So says the רמב"ן:

והנה היתר נדרים לא נתפרש בתורה והוא הלכה למשה מסיני שלא חקק הכתוב בחוט

השערה very small רמז כמו שאמרו היתר נדרים פורחים באויר ואין להם מה שיסמוכו

שרמז לו הכתוב לא יחל דברו כלומר שלא אמר לא יעבור על דברו אלא

שלא יחלל דברו שלא יעשה הנדר חלול ובא לבית דין וימצא לו פתח ויניחו

עליו והם ימחלו לו ואינו מחלל על זאת.

It doesn't say not to violate or not to go against his words but

not be מחלל his words to hint to the fact that there is a

situation where he could go against his words,

i.e.

if there was התרת נדרים.

Now why is it that the תורה doesn't publicize the דין of התרת נדרים?

So says the רמב"ן along lines of what we just said about והטעם הזה

כאשר אמרתי שעשה היתר נדר ושבועה כסתרי תורה שלא יאמרו אלא לראויים להם ויכתבוהו

ברמז.

Okay.

The רמב"ן addresses then why does the תורה speak about this here because after

all in the end of פרשת פנחס spoke about the קרבנות you're obligated to

give and there it said aside from these קרבנות or aside from the נדרים

ונדבות that you made that you also bring on the מועד.

So the תורה mentioned נדרים ונדבות and therefore speaks about נדרים over here.

So in any case,

based on the חשש זלזול בנדרים that's A,

why the תורה doesn't publicize the דין of Okay,

פסוק ג,

איש כי ידר נדר.

Now before we begin this section,

by way of introduction let's mention that we know that there is a concept

of נדרים and a concept of שבועות.

The גמרא in נדרים דף ב ע"ב and some other places speaks of the

basic distinction between נדרים and שבועות where it's one time the גמרא explicitly speaks

of the distinction between גברא and חפצא.

The גמרא says that נדר is an איסור חפצא whereas a שבועה is an

איסור גברא,

meaning that if I אסר something on myself with a נדר,

then I'm saying that this loaf of bread is אסור like a קרבן.

I don't speak about what I'm going to do or not do,

I speak about the I'm giving a certain status to this loaf of bread

that it's אסור like a קרבן.

שבועה is something which I say I will do or won't do.

That's why there is a concept that I could swear that tomorrow I'm going

to play basketball,

tomorrow I'm going to go to the store,

but there's no concept of taking a נדר that tomorrow I'm going to play

basketball,

tomorrow I'm going to the store,

because נדר is an איסור חפצא and שבועה is a דין on the גברא,

and there are various ramifications of this distinction.

In any case,

according to the גירסא in רש"י which רמב"ן had,

we don't have this גירסא,

there's some הוה אמינא that a נדר,

that a קונם which is a word for a נדר,

קונם can be taken to violate an איסור,

to violate an איסור,

and the מדרש says no,

a נדר to go ahead and violate an איסור,

that doesn't work.

Says רמב"ן,

it's not שייך any הוה אמינא a נדר to actively violate an איסור,

because after all there is no such thing as a נדר to actively do

anything.

נדר is just when you אסר something upon yourself.

So says רמב"ן that הוה אמינא that the מדרש had that one's promise would

be חל even to violate an איסור,

that הוה אמינא is only שייך by שבועות and not by נדרים.

By שבועות one would have had a הוה אמינא if he swears he's going

to eat טריפה that should be binding.

קמשמע לן that not.

So if you take a look a number of lines into this רמב"ן פסוק

ג,

חקירה על הדבר שבועות והרב החליפו לנדרים,

and רש"י switched it,

רש"י confused it and used it for נדרים.

Again,

we don't have this in our רש"י.

Okay.

And the רמב"ן goes on to say that by נדרים the whole thing is

not שייך because נדרים דהוי איסור חפצא דאסר חפצא עלי,

לפיכך אינן חלים על דבר שאין בו ממש,

כגון נדר עלי שלא אדבר עמך.

If I take a נדר I won't speak with you or I won't go

with you,

I won't sleep,

so נדר is not שייך there even by דבר הרשות.

If I take a נדר I'm going to eat something.

The רמב"ן does point out that there is a concept of a נדר for

דבר מצוה which in a certain sense נדרי גבוה,

there it's a נדר to do something.

הרי עלי עולה הרי עלי שלמים.

But even there he says there's some חפצא aspect.

I don't know why he necessarily needs to say this,

but there is some חפצא aspect that when I say I'm going to bring

a קרבן,

then there is a lien on my property,

a lien on my property and also or alternatively he says that eventually once

I dedicate some animal then there is some חפצא that's involved.

So some חפצא aspect even to נדרי גבוה.

Okay.

Now is there such a thing as a נדר to go against the תורה?

So a דרשה says he can't have a שבועה to go against the תורה.

שבועה that I'm going to eat טריפה that doesn't work.

What about a נדר to go against the תורה?

Is that something which is שייך?

So רמב"ן points out that you can have such a thing in a certain

sense.

For example,

a person that אוסר all מצה upon himself.

If I take a נדר not to eat מצה,

then that נדר is in a certain sense חל.

Why is that חל?

If a שבועה is not חל against a מצוה,

why is a נדר חל?

So the ר"ן or the רמב"ן over here I think makes reference to the

idea that when I take a נדר not to eat any מצה,

so that's not going,

there's no head-on collision with a מצוה of the תורה in the sense that

when I take a נדר not to eat מצה,

or I'm sorry when I take a נדר that all מצה is אסור upon

me,

so I'm not directly going against the תורה,

I'm just saying that the מצה is אסור upon me and therefore...

If I say take a שבועה I'm not going to eat מצה,

so when there's a collision between a locomotive and a fly,

generally speaking the fly loses,

the locomotive wins.

But when one takes a נדר and he אסורs all the מצה,

then you're not going against the locomotive,

you're just derailing that locomotive by preventing...

you're causing a situation where you don't have the ability to be מקיים that...

what's it called.

Okay,

he points out that a שבועה,

just as a שבועה against a מצוה isn't binding,

so also a שבועה to do a מצוה is not binding.

And although you guys might remember,

you might have come across the גמרא in נדרים דף ח that says,

based on the פסוק נשבעתי ואקיימה לשמור משפטי צדקך,

a person could take a שבועה to do a מצוה,

but the רמב"ן understands that that isn't really binding.

It's permissible,

it's not considered to be a שבועת שוא;

it's not considered to be מוציא שם שמים לבטלה.

And if one feels that he needs to encourage himself to do a מצוה,

then he's allowed to take such a שבועה.

But the רמב"ן says it's not really binding,

and if he doesn't do that מצוה,

then he's מבטל מצוה but he hasn't been מבטל his שבועה.

The ר"ן in נדרים argues.

The ר"ן in נדרים says that a שבועה to do a מצוה is binding.

It's not binding with respect to having to bring a קרבן,

which is part of the normal consequence of not keeping a שבועה,

but it is binding with respect to בל תאחר,

if I'm not mistaken.

Okay,

skipping to פרק ל"א פסוק ו':

וישלח אתם משה אלף למטה.

So a number of soldiers that went to battle against מדין is relatively small,

just one thousand from each tribe.

So says the רמב"ן פסוק ו' ל"א ו':

לא שלח שם עם...

לא שלח שם כל עם הצבא אף על פי שהיו מדינים עם רב וערים

בצורות גדולות מאד והטעם כי הנכשלים בבנות מואב היו רבים ואינם ראויים לנקמת ה'.

People that had sinned against מדין,

so it wasn't advisable,

proper that they should go to war.

על כן בחרו אנשים צדיקים וידועים לשבטיהם.

Okay,

skipping to פסוק כ"ג:

תעבירו באש ותהר.

The תורה speaks of how to כשר the כלים that they got from מדין.

And the תורה says כל דבר אשר יבוא באש—אמרינן מהפסוק—תעבירו באש ותהר אך במי

נדה יתחטא וכל אשר לא יבוא באש תעבירו במים.

What does תעבירו במים mean?

So רש"י understands that means מקוה.

הלכה says that when you buy a כלי from a גוי,

even though you know that it wasn't used for טריף,

nevertheless it requires טבילה,

that's a דין of טבילת כלים.

So that's how רש"י understands תעבירו במים.

רמב"ן says that's incorrect.

תעבירו doesn't sound like טבילה.

טבילה,

if the תורה were referring to טבילה,

it should say perhaps תטבילו במים.

Okay,

and furthermore,

says the רמב"ן,

just as the פסוק says that a כלי that was used for אש,

תעבירו באש,

that's for purposes of כשרing,

so also a כלי that wasn't used for אש does require to be כשרed,

need to rinse it vigorously to make sure you got off all the טריף

that there might be on that כלי.

So the רמב"ן says תעבירו במים means to rinse thoroughly.

Okay,

where do you know the דין of טבילת כלים?

So that you know from another phrase in the פסוק.

The תורה said כל דבר אשר יבוא באש תעבירו באש אך במי נדה יתחטא.

מי נדה יתחטא,

that is a reference to the דין of טבילת כלים.

Okay,

over here in the פסוקים,

the fact that this is...

that some כלים require תעבירו באש,

others not,

this is the source of the concept כבולעו כך פולטו,

the way you כשר a כלי,

whether it be כשרing a כלי from טריף or כשרing a כלי for פסח,

is done in the...

you're meant to apply the same level of heat,

same treatment which originally caused the כלי to become problematic.

Okay,

the רמב"ן goes on to raise the possibility ולבי מגמגם.

מהרהר עוד at the end of page שכז,

ולבי מהרהר עוד לומר תיז,

ולבי מהרהר עוד לומר שהטבילה זו מדבריהם ומקרא אסמכתא עשו אותו.

So he suggests maybe the whole דין of טבילת כלים is a דין דרבנן

not a דין דאורייתא.

Okay,

then the רמב"ן in that same piece a couple lines later addresses the following

issue:

Why now?

Why only when Jewish people went to war against מדין and captured כלים,

why only now does the תורה be מצווה on how to כשר כלים?

Why did the תורה not have a similar discussion when we waged war against

סיחון and עוג?

So says the רמב"ן:

ויאסר אותם עתה בהגעלת כלי מדין מאיסורי הגויים ונאמר להם זה מתחילה בכלי סיחון

ועוג שלקחו גם שלל כמו שאמרו רק הבהמה בזזנו לנו ושלל הערים אשר לכדנו

והטעם כי סיחון ועוג מלכי אמורי הם וארצם מנחלת ישראל.

That was part of conquering ארץ ישראל.

When we conquer ארץ ישראל,

then הלכה says that even טריפה foods which one conquers are permissible.

What impact that has on soldiers nowadays,

so ask the soldiers nowadays.

Maybe they'll be able to tell you.

I don't know.

In any case,

so says the רמב"ן:

והותר להם כל שללם אפילו האיסורים דכתיב.

There's a פסוק in דברים it says that הקדוש ברוך הוא gives us בתים

מלאים כל טוב אשר לא מילאת,

houses full of good stuff which the גמרא understands including טריפה food.

ואמרו רבותינו כתלי דחזירי אישתרו להו,

were permitted to that.

אבל מדין,

so מחלוקת ראשונים which in the bottom he discusses what's the nature of that

דין of כתלי דחזירי.

But in any case,

so מדין wasn't part of ארץ ישראל and therefore the and we just attacked

מדין לנקום נקמתם.

And therefore when it comes to the booty,

there was a need to כשר the stuff.

Okay,

he also says that with respect to טומאה that they might have encountered with

סיחון and עוג,

there there was a rule of טומאה הותרה בציבור.

Okay.

Skipping to פסוק ל"ו,

the רמב"ן says that that which the תורה goes in so much detail,

the מחצה is to teach us that from the time they conquered it till

the time when they split it,

even one of the animals didn't die,

which is a נס.

I have no I don't understand why there was such a נס,

what the purpose of that נס is,

what the significance of that.

I don't know.

In any case,

skipping to ל"ב ב.

ל"ב ב.

ויבואו בני גד ובני ראובן.

So at times it mentions בני גד first,

at times it mentions בני ראובן first.

So says the רמב"ן,

well those times it mentions ראובן first is due to the fact that they

were older.

So the פרשה begins with ומקנה רב היה לבני ראובן.

But apparently גד was stronger and they're the ones that I think he says

initiated the idea.

So says the רמב"ן:

הקדים הכתוב בני ראובן בפסוק ראשון מקנה רב היה לבני ראובן ולבני גד כמשפט

הוא הבכור ובן הגבירה וכן כשסיפר הכתוב מעשה הזה יאמר לראובני ולגדי נתתי אבל

כל הפרשה הזו יקדים בני גד כי הם נתנו העצה הזאת והם היו המדברים

תחילה משאלת הנחלה הזאת והם היו גיבורים יותר מבני ראובן שנאמר וטרף זרוע אף

קדקוד.

And therefore they weren't afraid of living on the right side of the Jordan.

Okay.

Now משה רבינו suspected,

says the רמב"ן,

that that which they didn't want to cross the Jordan is because of פחד.

And therefore he says you have over here a repeat of the עבירה of

the חטא המרגלים.

And they respond חס ושלום,

not afraid of them.

We'll we're gonna be happy to go first in war and we'll easily conquer

them כי לחמנו הם.

צריך עיון לכאורה on the רמב"ן,

according to the רמב"ן,

those that I think it's some other way,

but according to the רמב"ן,

one might ask why משה רבינו didn't say sorry,

I misunderstood you.

Could be that בכל זאת he felt that there was something wrong over here,

but according to the רמב"ן,

it was משה רבינו was חושד them that they were speaking out of fear

when in reality says that's not the case.

Okay,

skipping to פסוק ל"ג,

לחצי שבט מנשה,

so says the רמב"ן,

"Hey,

where'd מנשה come from?

They originally didn't put in any request." So says רמב"ן,

"מתחילה לא בא לפניו שבט מנשה.

והוא כאשר חלק הארץ לשני השבטים,

ראה שהיא ארץ גדולה יותר מן הראוי להם,

ובקש מי שירצה להתנחל עמהם." Anybody want to join?

And the מנשה volunteered.

I think in the ספרי something that מנשה somehow associated with the תורה so

he wanted,

משה רבנו wanted מנשה there to help preserve the spiritual level of.

In any case,

so says רמב"ן,

there were some people of מנשה.

He points out חצי שבט מנשה doesn't mean half.

חצי just means a part.

Later in the continuation he indicates that it was a very small amount of

the שבט that in fact took נחלה on the right side of the Jordan.

Okay.

Now,

there's a רמב"ן over here that's something a bit out of order in פסוק

מ"א.

What do you have?

What's the דיבור המתחיל?

Do you have a רמב"ן in פסוק מ' in your?

I do not have מ',

I have מ"א.

מ"א,

ויאיר בן מנשה,

yeah.

Okay,

because for some reason the רמב"ן first talks about מ"א and then in the

middle he speaks about פסוק מ'.

I don't know the order for that.

In any case,

so ויאיר בן מנשה,

a funny question.

From what שבט was יאיר בן מנשה?

Who's buried in Grant's Tomb?

What שבט was יאיר בן מנשה?

מנשה.

So the answer is not מנשה.

That's correct.

Okay,

the רמב"ן points out based on פסוקים,

"יהודה פרץ חצרון וכולי,

ומנשה מכיר." And חצרון had a daughter and whose name was,

I don't know the daughter's name,

whose name was בת,

whatever.

So יאיר,

יאיר,

he's a descendant of מנשה from his maternal grandmother.

So descendant of מנשה and he got נחלה with them and therefore he's known

as יאיר בן מנשה,

but he wasn't actually from שבט מנשה.

Says רמב"ן,

"האיש הזה יתייחס אל משפחת אמו,

והוא שלקח אחוזתו עמהם,

כדברי הימים פירש שהוא בן חצרון," נכד בן חצרון בן יהודה,

"ואמו בת מכיר בן מנשה וכולי." Okay.

Now,

there in the continuation after a number of lines,

"וטעם ויתן משה את הגלעד למכיר בן מנשה." Says משה רבנו gave גלעד to

מכיר,

gave the גלעד a place called גלעד only after גלעד took it.

So whatever,

בקיצור,

so he gave it to מכיר.

Now what's strange about that is מכיר was probably,

we would guess,

was enjoying his eternal reward,

probably already had died by then.

After all,

מכיר was the son of מנשה.

So we would assume he's already dead.

Says רמב"ן,

well,

"וטעם ויתן משה את הגלעד למכיר בן מנשה למשפחתו כי בניו לכדוה." Another פסוק

also mentions מכיר,

it just means his kids.

However,

the רמב"ן does point out there are פסוקים which do seem to indicate that

we're talking about actually מכיר himself.

So he says,

okay,

maybe מכיר was still alive.

Why didn't he die because of the גזירת מרגלים?

Oh,

he was so old he wasn't even counted in the first count.

גזירת מרגלים was those people that were counted the first time around.

But he was a lot more than sixty,

not six hundred,

but whatever he's a lot more than sixty in the first count and therefore

he's not listed.

Okay.

So he says the last couple of lines,

"ואולי היה עדיין מכיר קיים ולא נגזר בגזירת המדבר בשלא היה מפקודי משה ואהרן,

שהיה לו יותר מששים שנה וערך שנים כדורות ראשונים." Okay.

The first רמב"ן is interesting,

maybe when we do חזרה we'll have time for that,

but the other רמב"ןs I want to get to.

Okay,

פסוק נ"ג,

ל"ג נ"ג,

פרשת מסעי.

"והורשתם את הארץ וישבתם בה כי לכם נתתי את הארץ לרשת אותה." "על דעתי

זו היא מצוות עשה,

יצווה אותם שישבו בארץ ויירשו אותה," "כי הוא נתנה להם," "ולא ימאסו בנחלת ה',"

not to be מואס in נחלת ה' and say,

"Hey,

let's go elsewhere." "ואילו יעלה על דעתם ללכת ולכבוש ארץ שנער או ארץ אשור

וזולתם ויישבו שם יעברו על מצוות ה'." And how much חז"ל went so far

in מצוות יישוב הארץ and it's אסור לצאת ממנה.

The רמב"ן over here implies the איסור לצאת is a branch of the מצווה

of יישוב הארץ.

And חז"ל will consider מורדת a woman that doesn't want to come with her

husband to ארץ ישראל and vice versa,

that's all included.

בקיבוץ המצווה זו,

ככתוב הזה מצות עשה,

והחזיר המצוה זו במקומות רבים,

מורישות הארץ.

He does point out that רש"י understands at least this particular פסוק,

והורשתם את הארץ וישבתם בה,

that the פסוק is coming to say you want to be able to live

in the land,

so you have to get rid of the גוים there.

והורשתם אתם ישביה אז וישבתם בה,

then תוכלו להתקיים בה,

ואם לאו לא תוכלו להתקיים בה.

So the פסוק over here is stating a necessary prerequisite to being able to

live in the land,

but not an actual מצווה according to רש"י.

Could be that there's other פסוקים that רש"י would acknowledge do indicate there's a

מצווה.

I mean חז"ל certainly speak of the concept of מצוות ישוב ארץ ישראל.

Okay.

לשכים בעיניכם.

The תורה says if you don't get rid of the כנענים,

the תורה says that those people that we leave will be...

will cause us problems.

The לשון of the פסוק,

they will be לשכים בעיניכם לצנינים בצדיכם.

לשכים,

thorns in our eyes,

and pegs in our side,

something along those lines.

says הראב"ן,

the ישוב הארץ,

okay.

In any case,

the רמב"ן,

the רמב"ן although רש"י seems to understand that they will just give us a

hard time,

but the רמב"ן understands that לשכים בעיניכם and לצנינים בצדיכם is not the same.

Rather,

the idea is as follows:

והכוונה בלשכים בעיניכם,

this is about six lines in the רמב"ן,

פסוק נ"ה,

ל"ג מ"ה נ"ה.

והכוונה בלשכים בעיניכם דתעות אתכם ולא תראו ולא תבינו כמו כי השוחד יעוור פקחים.

Just like the פסוק says השוחד יעוור פקחים,

so that also means that if we leave the גוים in the land,

they will have a rotten influence on them.

Because a person is influenced by his surroundings,

of course.

Now we need to be aware of the influence that we have not only

nowadays,

you don't need to live together with somebody to live in the surroundings of

somebody to be negatively influenced.

We have what we call phones,

which sometimes could,

you know,

bring the influence of also,

but the רמב"ן doesn't mention a phone.

והכוונה בלשכים בעיניכם דתעות אתכם ולא תראו ולא תבינו כמו כי השוחד יעוור פקחים.

וכן לפני עיוור לא תתן מכשול,

אמר רבותינו,

יאמר כי ינקרו עיניכם דתעות אתכם ולא תראו ולא תבינו וילמדו אתכם ככל תועבותיהם

לעבוד את אלוהיהם.

כמו שאמר,

לא ישבו בארצך פן יחטיאו אותך לי כי תעבוד את אלוהיהם.

ואחר שישימו שכים בעיניכם,

after their הטעות and will cause us to do all sorts of עבירות,

then they will be לצנינים בצדיכם.

Then they'll cause us all sorts of צרות,

then they'll steal from us and rob us and burn down our forests and

terrorist attacks and all sorts of other things.

And the פסוק says something,

you know,

quite scary:

והיה כאשר דמיתי לעשות להם אעשה לכם.

That which I intended to do to them will happen to you.

Okay,

skipping to י"ד,

ל"ה י"ד,

את שלוש הערים.

The רמב"ן addresses a number of topics over here.

Number one,

he quotes רש"י that says why three on left,

why three ערי מקלט on the left and three ערי מקלט on the right?

After all,

there were more שבטים on the left side rather than on the right side.

So the רש"י as he quotes רש"י based on the גמרא that בגלעד שכיחי

רוצחים.

גלעד עבר הירדן lots of רוצחים.

So therefore you need a large number of ערי מקלט.

In the continuation,

the רמב"ן says no,

על דרך הפשט it was a large area and therefore you needed three.

The fact that there were fewer people there,

that's not relevant.

It's a large area,

you need just as many ערי מקלט.

That's one approach he has in the continuation.

But with respect to רש"י that says בגלעד שכיחי רוצחים,

so the רמב"ן has two ways of understanding that.

Is this simply על שם העתיד in the sense that הקדוש ברוך הוא knew

that there're going to be lots of רוצחים.

in גלעד,

or is it in a certain sense על שם ההווה,

דהיינו that there's something about the climate of גלעד which produces a רוצח?

Certain climates which have different,

different areas,

parts of the world,

not only is there a physical climate,

you know,

some places are cold,

hot,

lots of rain,

little rain,

but apparently there's a spiritual climate,

and גלעד has somewhat of a negative spiritual climate,

the implication is.

So says רמב"ן line three,

ואף על פי שאין מקלט אלא בשוגג,

רש"י or the רמב"ן addresses ערי מקלט for שוגג,

so what's it got to do with the רוצחים במזיד?

Nevertheless,

there were many רוצחים במזיד and they would make pretend they were שוגג,

therefore you need ערי מקלט.

Okay.

So in any case,

so says רמב"ן,

ואם כן צוה הקדוש ברוך הוא זה על שם העתיד,

על דרך וקם העם הזה וזנה,

just like the תורה informs,

הקדוש ברוך הוא informs משה that the Jewish people are going to go by

their affairs.

או שיאמרו שהיה אויר ארץ גלעד מגדל רוצחים מאז והלאה לדורות.

Okay.

Now the רמב"ן addresses another difficulty.

We know that in addition to the six ערי מקלט,

at least the בבלי assumes and the context indicates that the ירושלמי perhaps indicates,

holds not this way,

but the בבלי,

according to the בבלי,

how many cities of refuge were there or how many cities provided refuge?

48.

The six ערי מקלט plus 42 ערי לוים.

And in fact,

if you make a חשבון,

it comes out if 42 plus six is 48,

48 divided by 12 is four.

So basically you have more or less in between the ערי לוים and ערי

מקלט,

it came out that basically there was four for each שבט,

now whether it be on the right side or the left side of the

Jordan.

So there was not a disproportionate number of ערי מקלט on the right side.

So the רמב"ן says about six,

seven lines down,

ומי תמה כי על דרש רבותינו ז"ל הכתוב שאמר ונתתם להם ארבעים ושמונה עיר

כולם למקלט צוה בהם,

ומהם מארץ כנען ל"ו ערים ומעבר הירדן י"ב,

I think based on פסוקים in יהושע.

So I don't think he answered that particular question.

In any case,

בכל מושבותיכם.

So the תורה when it speaks about the סנהדרין,

the תורה uses the לשון,

והיו אלה לכם לחקת משפט,

after it speaks about ערי מקלט,

והיו אלה לכם לחקת משפט לדורותיכם בכל מושבותיכם.

So what's בכל מושבותיכם?

Also in חוץ לארץ.

That you have סנהדרין also in חוץ לארץ.

But רש"י adds,

only as long as it was functioning in ארץ ישראל.

What does it mean only as long as it's functioning in ארץ ישראל?

That nowadays we don't have a סנהדרין functioning in ארץ ישראל.

And the רמב"ן says,

וכן הדבר,

after quoting רש"י it says וכן הדבר,

that you don't have סנהדרין forever,

שלאחר חורבן אינה נוהגת לא בארץ ישראל ולא בחוץ לארץ כמו ששנו רבותינו בפרק

ד' מיתות ובאת אל הכהנים הלוים ואל השופט אשר יהיה בימים ההם בזמן שיש

כהן יש משפט ובזמן שאין כהן אין משפט,

and also the מכילתא מנין שאין ממיתים אלא בפני הבית תלמוד לומר מעם מזבחי

תקחנו למות.

But,

asks the רמב"ן,

so why does the תורה then say לדורותיכם?

A מצוה that's תלויה in the בית,

normally the תורה doesn't say לדורותיכם.

The תורה will emphasize לדורותיכם when it speaks about שבועות and the איסור חדש,

because there you might think,

might think that שבועות only exists when you have ספירת העומר דאורייתא and when

you bring the קרבן העומר,

when you have the קרבן העומר and איסור חדש you would think doesn't exist

for all generations because it's also associated with the קרבנות.

But a מצוה that is בזמן הבית it doesn't say לדורותיכם.

So says the רמב"ן that maybe the לדורותיכם doesn't mean that the death penalty

is לדורותיכם,

but what is לדורותיכם even after the חורבן הבית is the דינים which are

תלויה in סמיכה but don't involve a death penalty,

such as דיני קנסות and גזילות וחבלות and מלקות.

Those things do exist even after the as long as you have סמיכה *smicha*,

as long as you have סמיכה *smicha*.

Okay,

skipping to לא תחניפו את הארץ *lo sachnifu es ha'aretz*.

So don't cause the land to be חונף *chunef*.

What is חניפה *chanufa*?

Let's take a look at the

רמב"ן *Ramban*.

משה אמר תחילה ולכם לחוקת משפט לדורותיכם בכל מושבותיכם שאלו משפטים נוהגים גם בחוץ

לארץ חזר והחמיר ביושבי הארץ יותר לכבוד השכינה ששם *Moshe amar techila ulechem lechukas

mishpat ledoroseichem b'chol moshevoseichem she'ilu mishpatim nohagim gam b'chutz la'aretz chazar vehichmir b'yoshvei ha'aretz

yoseir lichvod hashchina she'sham*.

As careful as we need to be about punishing in general and murderers specifically

in חוץ לארץ *chutz la'aretz*,

you need to be even more careful in ארץ ישראל *Eretz Yisrael*.

והזהיר שלא נחנפה שלא נטמאה *vihizhir shelo nachnof osa shelo nitamei osa*.

וענין החנופה הוא הנאמר בקללות זרע רב תוציא השדה ומעט תאסוף כי אם תטע

ועבדת ויין לא תשתה וזיתים יהיו לך ושמן לא תסוך כי כל חנופה עשות

הפך הנראה והנדמה לעינים והוא עונש בארץ בעבודה זרה שפיכות דמים וגלוי עריות *v'inyan

hachanufa hu hane'emar baklalos zera rav totzi hasadeh me'at te'asof ki im tita v'avadeta

veyayin lo sishteh v'zeitim yihiyu lecha v'shemen lo sasuch ki chol chanufa asos heifech

hanireh v'hanidmeh la'einayim hu onesh ba'aretz be'avoda zara shefichus damim v'gilui arayos*.

Okay.

I guess that wasn't politically correct.

In any case,

so to review some things which we've seen רבותי *rabbosai*.

So רמב"ן *Ramban* pointed out that the תורה *Torah* begins the פרשת נדרים *parshas

nedarim* with ראשי המטות *rashei hamatos*.

A:

This is not to publicize הפרת נדרים *hafras nedarim*.

B:

To hint at the fact that the ראשי המטות *rashei hamatos* play a special

role in נדרים *nedarim*,

i.e.

התרת נדרים *hataras nedarim*,

that a יחיד מומחה *yachid mumche* could be מתיר *masir*.

רמב"ן *Ramban* pointed out that due to this interest of the תורה *Torah* not

publicizing undoing נדרים *nedarim*,

the תורה *Torah* בכלל *b'chlal* didn't write explicitly the דין *din* of התרת נדרים

*hataras nedarim*.

Okay.

רמב"ן *Ramban* pointed out that based on the distinction that exists between נדרים *nedarim*

and שבועות *shvuos*,

נדר חפצא *neder cheftza*,

שבועת גברא *shvuas gavra*,

so there's no הוה אמינא *hava amina* altogether that a נדר *neder* could be

taken to a נדר *neder* to do actively some עבירה *aveira* with word,

but by a שבועה *shvuah* there is such a הוה אמינא *hava amina*.

Point out that נדר *neder* always involves חפצא *cheftza* and even נדרי גבוה *nedrei

gavoah* there is some חפצא *cheftza* involved,

there's one's property that's משועבד *meshubad* or there's the animal that eventually one is

מקדיש *makdish* that is a חפצא *cheftza*.

Okay.

רמב"ן *Ramban* pointed out that by נדרים *nedarim*,

although a שבועה *shvuah* can't go against the מצוה *mitzvah*,

a נדר *neder* can go against the מצוה *mitzvah* in the sense of cancelling

a מצוה *mitzvah*.

If a person takes a נדר *neder* that the סוכה *sukkah* is אסור *asur*

to him,

then there's a way that that can be חל *chal*.

We point out that's due to the fact that it's not directly to go

against the מצוה *mitzvah*.

Okay.

רמב"ן *Ramban* pointed out that a שבועה *shvuah*,

a שבועה *shvuah* against a מצוה *mitzvah* is not חל *chal* altogether,

it's a שבועת שווא *shvuas shav*.

A שבועה *shvuah* to do a מצוה *mitzvah* is not a שבועת שווא *shvuas

shav* and one is allowed to take such a שבועה *shvuah*,

but it's not really,

also that is not really חל *chal*.

We point out some ראשונים *rishonim* hold that it's at least partially חל *chal*.

Okay.

Not that many soldiers went to war against מדין *Midyan* because the sinners,

it wasn't proper for them to go,

and therefore just a thousand from each שבט *shevet* were chosen.

Okay.

The פסוק *posuk* speaks of כל אשר לא יבא באש תעבירו באש וכל אשר

לא יבא במים תעבירו במים *kol asher lo yavo ba'eish taviru ba'eish v'chol asher

lo yavo bamayim taviru bamayim*.

רש"י *Rashi*,

טבילת כלים *tvilas keilim*.

רמב"ן *Ramban* says if טבילת כלים *tvilas keilim* is דאורייתא *de'oraisa*,

learn from some other phrase,

and this פסוק *posuk* תעבירו במים *taviru bamayim* means that you should scrub it

well to get the טריפה *treifa* off.

רמב"ן *Ramban* maintains the possibility that טבילת כלים *tvilas keilim* is דרבנן *de'rabbanan*.

רמב"ן *Ramban* addresses why is it that the דינים *dinim* of כשרות כלים *kashrus

keilim* is spoken about now and not In this פרשה normally

בני גד is mentioned before ראובן except at the beginning,

and that's due to the fact that בני גד were the initiators of this

idea.

He says that משה רבנו misunderstood;

משה רבנו at least suspected that they said what they said because of פחד

אנשי הארץ,

but they said that's not the case.

The רמב"ן points out that שבט מנשה,

although initially didn't put in a request,

משה רבנו when he saw there was so much נחלה there figured for sure

they're going to be settled,

so he offered it and מנשה took up on משה רבנו on the offer.

The רמב"ן points out that יאיר בן מנשה was from שבט יהודה,

but he took inheritance from מנשה because of the family connection.

מכיר,

the תורה indicates he was a warlike individual,

though that doesn't necessarily mean that's the case.

Maybe it was just his family.

The רמב"ן says the מצות ישוב הארץ and also sorts of other aspects of

this,

including the איסור יציאה מהארץ,

and that if a man wants to come to the land and the wife

doesn't or vice-versa,

then there are consequences.

The תורה says if you leave the גוים,

then they will be pain for eyes and on our sides,

which the רמב"ן explains as two distinct things.

The רמב"ן addressed why three,

or quoted רש"י,

three ערי מקלט left,

three ערי מקלט right,

due to גלעד שכיחי רוצחים,

לפי ששכיחי רוצחים.

The רמב"ן had two possibilities of what that means.

רמב"ן says that the whole question of why three and three is a strange

question in light of the fact that the ערי הלוים were also קולט.

And in the continuation and on the bottom he indicates the רמב"ן על דף

כ"ז has some approach according to which the ערי הלוים were not קולט,

which seems to be the ירושלמי.

That which the תורה says בכל מושבתיכם with respect to דיינים,

that doesn't mean that the death penalty is בכל מושבתיכם,

but other דינים which have to do with סמוכים,

those do exist even after חורבן הבית.

Have a wonderful Shabbat.