Ramban on Chukas

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 Ramban explains about seven lines in:

וטעם טומאת המת,

why is it המת is מטמא?

בעטיו של נחש,

because of the עצה of נחש,

that נחש convinced חוה and afterwards אדם ate from the עץ הדעת,

and that brought מיתה into the world.

And that מיתה normally comes about through the מלאך המות that’s associated with the

נחש.

So since the person dies through the מלאך המות,

that somehow generates or injects טומאה.

And the Ramban adds parenthetically,

כי הנפטרים בנשיקה לא יטמאו מן הדין.

A person that’s very righteous when he dies מיתת נשיקה,

מעיקרא דדין is not טמא.

והוא שאמרו,

צדיקים אינם מטמאין.

You have the statement חז"ל that צדיקים אינם מטמאין.

Now it should be pointed out that this statement that צדיקים אינם מטמאין,

so in the גמרא you have ביום שמת רבי בטלה טומאה,

which could be understood to mean along the lines of this idea that צדיקים

אינם מטמאין במיתתן,

but those others understand that when it says ביום שמת רבי בטלה כהונה,

what that means is the following.

Let’s say there is a person that doesn’t have anybody to bury him except

a כהן,

a נזיר,

so he buries him,

it’s a מת מצוה.

Let’s say there is a person that there is someone that dies and one

fellow could bury him but it’s not enough,

you need two.

So can a כהן be מטמא if you have a non-כהן and a כהן?

Can they both be מטמא?

So of course,

you need two people to bury him.

Let’s say you have an individual that out of that person that dies is

so important that it’s proper that everybody be involved in his burial,

so then הלכה says that even כהנים could be involved,

and that’s ביום שמת רבי בטלה כהונה,

that out of כבוד for רבי יהודה הנשיא it was proper for everybody to

be involved in the burial and therefore כהנים were allowed to be מטמא.

But certainly once that צדיק is buried,

then one might say that one is not allowed to be מטמא for him.

But the Ramban over here seems to be going with the approach that there

is no טומאה altogether by a צדיק and that

צדיקים אינם

מטמאין.

This is

נוגע to any כהנים

here?

Okay,

yes,

you do have.

So you should not rely on this Ramban and go into the מערת המכפלה

for a number of reasons.

Number one,

the head of עשו is there as well,

and he doesn’t necessarily qualify as a צדיק.

Also apparently there was a practice for some Jews to be buried there to

be buried in such a holy place.

There are those that do assume that a כהן is allowed to enter מערת

המכפלה either based on this צדיקים במיתתם אינם מטמאין or based on the fact

the way it’s constructed.

You’d have to learn the משניות אהלות and figure out what the מציאות is,

because it could be that the מציאות over there is one which dictates that

there wouldn't necessarily be טומאה.

The fact that some big tomb or whatever it’s called there by אברהם and

יצחק and שרה to assume that it’s דוקא there that the אבות are buried,

that’s probably not the case.

Okay.

In any case,

the Ramban says why is פרה אדומה written over here?

Well,

we’re told at the end of פרשת קרח,

מתנות כהונה,

and we’re told over here that also the טהרה of the Jewish people come

about through the כהנים.

Okay.

פסוק יד,

אדם כי ימות באהל.

So we have over here the דין of טומאת אהל.

And the Ramban points out it’s לאו דוקא if he dies in the אהל;

also if he dies outside and is brought into the אהל.

Okay.

It might be more common for people to die in the אהל,

so אדם כי ימות באהל,

the תורה says that there is טומאה.

Now the תורה here indicates the אהל itself is טמא,

and the Ramban points out generally speaking a building doesn’t become טמא except for

טומאת צרעת.

But if it’s an אהל...

of the אוהל itself and also to tell you most of the Jewish people

they did live in אוהלים at that time.

Okay.

The רמב"ן points out here in the פרשה you have טומאת מגע,

you have טומאת אוהל.

What's missing?

טומאת משא.

The רמב"ן says טומאת משא goes in from a קל וחומר from נבלה.

A נבלה is מטמא במשא כל שכן a מת.

Okay.

The רמב"ן in the next piece in פסוק י"ט talks about the concept of

חרב הרי הוא כחלל.

ההלכה says the פסוק after all says that איש אשר יגע על פני השדה

בחלל חרב או במת.

So the תורה speaks of one touches a חלל חרב,

someone that's killed by a חרב.

So לכאורה that's strange,

why did the תורה speak of someone that's דווקא killed by a חרב?

The טומאה of a מת is the same regardless whether he died with a

חרב or died by having a 16-ton weight fall on him.

Why does the תורה דווקא mention חלל חרב?

So חז"ל understand this is coming to teach us that חרב הרי הוא כחלל.

A metal object or maybe even if it's not a metal object some כלי

that touches the מת has in a certain sense the same level of טומאה

as the מת himself.

However the רמב"ן points out that although in a certain sense that חרב that

touches a מת is אבי אבות הטומאה,

but there are some aspects with respect to which the חרב doesn't have the

same level of טומאה.

What was last year's מסכתא?

Last year was בבא קמא,

no?

בבא קמא.

So you guys the שטיקעס remember from תוספות דף ב' talks a little bit

about חרב הרי הוא כחלל.

הרמב"ן indicates there are certain קולות of חרב הרי הוא כחלל.

Number one,

it's not מטמא באוהל.

If there's a metal object that touched a מת,

and now that metal object is found in a certain אוהל,

so that does not cause everything in the אוהל to become טמא.

Also it doesn't require הזאה שלישי ושביעי.

If a person became טמא from the מת,

then in order to become טהור this פרשה says that you need to be

מזה on him from the third day.

If he became טמא on יום ראשון,

then he has to have his first הזאה not earlier than יום שלישי,

and then another הזאה on a number of days after that,

הזאה שלישי ושביעי.

So a person who became טמא with חרב כחלל doesn't require הזאה שלישי ושביעי.

A נזיר is not מגלח on חרב הרי הוא כחלל.

A נזיר after all that came in contact with the מת needs to go

back to go,

needs to start again,

but not on חרב כחלל.

And perhaps most importantly a כהן is not מוזהר on חרב הרי הוא כחלל.

Although a כהן is not allowed to come in contact with the מת in

אוהל המת,

but nevertheless he is not מוזהר on חרב הרי הוא כחלל.

Okay there are those that are מחמיר on that,

but the famous line of שלח רבינו חיים כהן לרבינו תם איזה בית אשר

תבנו לי כי אין בית אשר אין שם מת,

whatever,

and continues the רמב"ן.

הרמב"ן points out in פרק כ' פסוק א' that there are different קדשים and

he points out that I think the אבן עזרא assumes that they're the same

but in fact he points out there are different קדשים.

Okay.

החטא של משה רבינו in מי מריבה.

I assume that's a new section on my page רע"ג,

if anybody has the רמב"ן I'm sure that's a new paragraph.

We're in פסוק א'.

החטא של משה רבינו במי מריבה אינו מפורש בכתוב.

Page שנ"ו.

שנ"ו.

החטא של משה רבינו במי מריבה אינו מפורש בכתוב.

רש"י has the famous פשט that the עבירה was the fact that he hit

the rock instead of speaking to the rock.

The רמב"ן doesn't like that פשט.

He says,

hey,

I'm not so sure he wasn't meant to hit the rock.

Maybe he was.

After all הקדוש ברוך הוא did tell him to take the מטה.

We find also in ספר שמות that משה רבינו is instructed to hit the

rock.

So he had every reason to assume that also here he was meant to

do so.

And besides,

says the רמב"ן,

what is the problem even assuming there's no ציווי?

But hey.

What's the problem with hitting the rock?

רש"י says,

well,

hey,

had he just spoken to the rock,

then it would be a greater קידוש השם when the rock produces water than

when he hit the rock.

Says רמב"ן,

I'm not sure that's the case.

After all,

whether you hit a rock or speak to a rock or whatever you do

to the rock,

you could threaten to shoot at the rock,

it's not going to give you water.

So,

he doesn't think that that is correct.

And apparently there are all sorts of other פשטים that are given,

which אבן עזרא rejects.

And he says some פשט על פי סוד,

which רמב"ן says is also incorrect.

So,

which means that we're in the meantime without any working פשט.

And then he quotes the רמב"ם.

רמב"ם has a famous פשט which the רמב"ם says look at this פשט,

such a wonderful פשט.

And רמב"ן says it's 100% wrong.

What's that פשט of the רמב"ם?

So,

we're just going to very superficially try to understand that.

He says בקיצור that the problem was that משה רבינו expressed anger at the

Jewish people.

And that was considered to be a terrible thing because after all,

any big or little thing which משה רבינו does,

then the people learn from,

the people try to emulate.

And if משה רבינו gets angry,

then apparently getting angry is not such a bad thing.

Apparently הקדוש ברוך הוא got angry at us.

And in reality,

we don't find that הקדוש ברוך הוא got angry at the Jewish people.

משה רבינו over here says שמעו נא המורים,

calls them rebellious.

And we don't find that הקדוש ברוך הוא got angry.

So,

that was very improper.

So,

take a look,

רבי משה,

we're about six lines on page רע"ד.

רבי משה סבר בזו הסברא ואמר כי משה רבינו עליו השלום חטאו הוא שנטה

לצד הרגזנות,

anger.

ואמר שמעו נא המורים.

דקדק עליו השם יתברך שיהיה אדם כמוהו כועס לפני עדת בני ישראל במקום

שאין בו ראוי הכעס.

וכל כיוצא בזה בדין האיש הוא חילול השם.

מפני שתנועותיו,

his movements,

כולם מדבריו ילמדו ממנו ויקוו להגיע בהם אל הצלחת העולם הזה והעולם הבא.

They assumed do like משה רבינו and you'll become have הצלחה in this world

and the world to come.

והאיך יראה עליו הכעס והוא מן הפעולות הרעות ולא תבוא כי אם מתכונת רעה

מתכונות הנפש.

אבל אמרו בו מריתם פי.

So,

what's it got to do with מריתם פי?

So,

that he goes on to explain that the Jewish people at this time were

such holy people.

After all,

חז"ל say מה שראתה שפחה על הים לא ראה יחזקאל מימיו.

So,

they're such a holy people,

which is an interesting idea.

And so therefore it was improper for him to express anger.

Okay.

And we don't find,

as I said,

that הקדוש ברוך הוא got angry.

And the רמב"ם,

after he says this פשט,

says ויטענו ספק מספקי התורה שנאמרו בו דברים רבים נשאל פעמים רבים איזה חטא

חטא ראה מה שנאמר בו ומה שאמרנו בו אנחנו והאמת יורה דרכו.

Compare my פשט to their פשט and says the רמב"ם,

you see how amazing this פשט is.

אלו דבריו ז"ל.

And the רמב"ן very sharply gets,

I don't know if I want to say gets angry,

but he says הוסיף הבל על הבלים.

He says it doesn't fit in the פסוקים.

It says מריתם פי,

it says לא האמנתם בי,

שלא האמינו בו,

and אין עונש בראש הכעס.

And he says,

hey,

there's other places where משה רבינו got angry.

משה רבינו got angry at פקודי החיל in the war with מדין.

And he says that the fact that משה רבינו says שמעו נא המורים,

that's like giving a מוסר.

After all,

משה רבינו says later in ספר דברים a number of times ממרים הייתם עם

השם.

Parenthetically one might suggest,

and I don't know if this is true with the רמב"ן,

but I think it's a very important יסוד,

and that is when your kid does something bratty,

so is it proper to sometimes express anger and to punish?

Well,

yes and no.

It needs to be clear that it's not something being done out of a

fit of anger.

If you hit your kid when you're angry,

then you'll teach your son the following lesson:

that when you get angry,

you hit people.

You won't be מחנך them about so you meant to try to first calm

down,

and then if you decide that you need to hit your kid,

you give him a hug,

tell him I love you very much,

but you did something really bratty and you need to get...

So maybe רמב״ם *Rambam* would say that hey,

that which משה רבינו *Moshe Rabbeinu* later says שמעו נא המורים *shimu na hamorim*,

okay,

he needs to give them מוסר *mussar*,

but at the time they were thirsty.

They really needed that water,

and even though they asked improperly,

they were not in a mindset to be willing to listen to מוסר *mussar*.

Therefore,

at that point it was improper perhaps.

In any case,

besides,

says the רמב״ן *Ramban*,

what's this got to do with אהרן *Aharon*?

אהרן *Aharon* presumably never got angry.

בשלום ובמישור הלך *beshalom u'vimeshor halach*.

And besides,

he says,

and here's an important line,

ועוד שאפשר שלא כעס גדול מאת השם עליהם בכעס מבעי עם משה *v'od she'efshar

shelo ka'as gadol mei'es Hashem aleihem be-ka'as mibei im Moshe*.

Certainly הקדוש ברוך הוא *Hakadosh Baruch Hu* did get angry at the Jewish people.

Why?

He says,

וכל הנסיונות במדבר חטאם הגדול כשאמרו למה העליתנו ממצרים *v'chol hanisyonot bamidbar chetam hagadol

keshe'amru lama he'elisunu miMitzrayim*,

expressing this idea of why did you take us out of Egypt,

indicating שרצו להיות עבדים לשונאיהם *sheratzu lihyot avadim l'soneihem*,

they would prefer to be slaves of somebody that hates them בעבודת פרך *ba'avodas

perech*,

rather than being עם האלוקים כבן העובד את אביו *im ha'elokim k'ven ha'oved es

aviv*.

That's a terrible thing,

to say that it would be better to serve פרעה *Paroh* than to serve

God.

That's a terrible thing,

says רמב״ן This רמב״ן *Ramban* is very important because it addresses the obvious question,

which when we speak about the importance of יציאת מצרים *Yetzias Mitzrayim*,

the תורה *Torah* says that הקדוש ברוך הוא *Hakadosh Baruch Hu* took us out

of מצרים *Mitzrayim* why,

להיות לכם לאלוקים *lihyot lachem l'elokim*,

for us to be servants,

slaves of הקדוש ברוך הוא *Hakadosh Baruch Hu*.

You might ask,

well hey,

before we were slaves and now we're slaves.

What did we gain?

A very important part of the answer is that you can't compare being a

slave to a פרעה *Paroh* that hates you to being a slave,

a servant of הקדוש ברוך הוא *Hakadosh Baruch Hu* that loves you.

And presumably the רמב״ן *Ramban* would also add that this servitude to God is

something which exists,

as רמב״ן *Ramban* tells us in פרשת כי תצא *Parshas Ki Seitzei*,

not based on something which הקדוש ברוך הוא *Hakadosh Baruch Hu* needs,

but because הקדוש ברוך הוא *Hakadosh Baruch Hu* wants us to be ראוי *ra'uy*

to have a proper relationship with Him.

Okay.

In any case,

and the רמב״ן *Ramban* further he asks at the end of page רע״ה *resh

ayin hey*,

he says the פסוק *passuk* says explicitly in תהלים *Tehillim*,

ויקציפו על מי מריבה וירע למשה בעבורם *vayaksifu al mei Meriva vayera l'Moshe ba'avuram*.

ויקציפו *vayaksifu*.

They caused הקדוש ברוך הוא *Hakadosh Baruch Hu* to get angry.

I guess maybe ויקציפו *vayaksifu* could be understood that they caused משה רבינו *Moshe

Rabbeinu* to get angry.

They caused משה רבינו *Moshe Rabbeinu* to lose his temper.

Maybe that's how the רמב״ם *Rambam* would explain.

In any case,

והקרוב מן הדברים שנאמרו בזה הוא טוב לדחות השואל *v'hakarov min hadvarim shene'emru baze

hu tov l'dchos hashoel*.

And the best פשט *pshat* that you could use when people ask you,

which sounds like this is not the real פשט *pshat*,

but it says the רמב״ן *Ramban* is דברי רבינו חננאל *divrei Rabbeinu Chananel*,

שכתב כי החטא אמרו המן הסלע הזה נוציא לכם מים *shekasav ki hachet amru

hamin hasela hazeh notzi lachem mayim*.

You had the potential here for a great קידוש השם *Kiddush Hashem*,

but משה *Moshe* and אהרן *Aharon* says המן הסלע הזה נוציא *hamin hasela hazeh

notzi*,

as if to say that we're doing it.

They were meant to focus on the fact that הקדוש ברוך הוא *Hakadosh Baruch

Hu* is doing this and that was the sin.

בראוי שיאמרו יוציא השם לכם מים *bara'uy sheyomru yotzi Hashem lachem mayim*.

After all this,

though,

he does say that the true פשט *pshat* is something על פי סוד *al

pi sod*.

There is such a line.

Don't see it now.

באמת כי עניין סוד גדול מסתרי התורה *be'emes ki inyan sod gadol misitrei haTorah*,

כבשנה אמרה להם הנני עומד לפניך *k'vishana amra lahem hineni omed lifnecha*,

some סוד מסודי התורה *sod misodei haTorah* and again the Kabbalistic parts we skip.

Okay.

Skipping to המן הסלע הזה נוציא לכם מים *hamin hasela hazeh notzi lachem mayim*.

So what does this mean?

Does this mean that it's impossible that God will create such a miracle?

האבן עזרא *ha-Ibn Ezra* explains that this rhetorical question,

do you think that בדרך הטבע *b'derech hateva* we could take water out of

this rock?

We certainly can't.

And therefore this is something which certainly is when we manage,

it's certainly a miracle come from God.

הרמב״ן *ha-Ramban* has some other פשט *pshat* but I'm sorry I overlooked this.

So you guys on your own will figure out what the פשט *pshat* from

the הרמב״ן *ha-Ramban* is.

Skipping to פסוק י״ט *Passuk Yud

Tes*.

So in the פסוק *passuk*,

the Jewish people twice they ask to pass through different countries.

They ask to pass through אדום *Edom* and also through סיחון *Sichon*,

is it?

When they ask to pass through אדום *Edom*,

they say עד אשר נעבור גבולך *ad asher na'avor gevulecha*.

When they speak about passing through סיחון and say they want to go through

to the land that הקדוש ברוך הוא promised us.

So why when asking to pass through אדום they just say נעבור גבולך and

they don't say to the land which הקדוש ברוך הוא promised us?

He says well,

that would arouse the קנאה of עשו.

That hey,

we're getting that wonderful land and not you.

Okay.

וישמע כנעני.

פרק כ"א פסוק א'.

רמב"ן addresses the following issue.

Of the Jewish people it says וישמע כנעני מלך ערד ישב הנגב כי בא

ישראל דרך האתרים וילחם בישראל וישב ממנו שבי.

And the Jewish people,

they conquer ערד.

Where is...

or they conquer these people that came from ערד.

Where is this ערד?

Which side of the Jordan?

This was in ארץ ישראל proper.

ארץ ישראל proper,

so the Jewish people,

they already entered ארץ ישראל.

So I'll just point out in connection with this,

you see that the southern נגב is not officially part of ארץ ישראל because

after all the Jewish people,

they did pass through the southern נגב.

So it seemed that it's not part of ארץ ישראל.

That's the impression that one gets.

So in any case,

where's this ערד?

So he points out it would seem that it is part of ארץ ישראל.

So how do we understand the פסוקים over here?

So he says that although ערד is on the left side of the Jordan

so to speak,

but these כנענים came from ערד to where the Jewish people were,

and that which the פסוק speaks of the Jewish people conquering their cities,

that's something which is written על דרך נבואה.

Something which took place later,

which is pretty wild.

The תורה wrote something before it actually happened.

But he does point out that you have similar things like with respect to

the מן,

the תורה says in פרשת בשלח I think it is,

that the Jewish people they had the מן for forty years till they came

into ארץ כנען.

So the תורה writes about something that didn't happen yet.

After all,

it was only after the death of משה רבינו.

And he has some other example of this as well.

Okay.

You also with respect to the נשיאים in פרשת פנחס it speaks of the

נשיאים אשר ינחלו לכם את הארץ.

So it's a נבואה these people had a guarantee that they would survive till

after they crossed the Jordan.

Okay.

The פסוק speaks of כי בא ישראל דרך האתרים in the continuation of this

פסוק.

So רמב"ן quotes the אונקלוס that says that they came the way of the

מרגלים.

So רמב"ן understands that according to אונקלוס,

what this means is the following.

The מרגלים came into ארץ ישראל and some of the כנענים they noticed these

spies coming,

and then they followed them to see where the spies are going to.

So they knew the Jewish people's coming that way,

and that's they figured it's כדאי to wage war.

Although לכאורה צריכה עיון because there were forty years that passed and how they

know the Jewish people are still there?

I don't know,

not sure,

but some...

something along those lines.

Okay.

According to חז"ל,

so when it says וישמע כנעני מלך ערד,

what he heard was the death of אהרן.

And says רמב"ן very interestingly,

he says they heard the death of אהרן,

they figured that this is a good time to wage war.

Why?

Presumably because they no longer have the זכות of the צדיק.

They heard the מיתת הצדיק and therefore they came.

So even the גויים they realized special protection which the Jewish people have from

their צדיקים.

רש"י says the שכינה left.

רש"י says the שכינה left.

Okay.

רמב"ן doesn't play that up.

You're right.

According to רש"י they saw the שכינה left and therefore they figured it's a

good...

okay.

וישב ממנו שבי.

So it says that these כנענים they took from us וישב ממנו שבי.

So פשט is they took somebody captive.

But חז"ל understand no,

no,

no.

We had taken somebody captive and they,

the גויים when they waged war,

they took that captive away.

Meaning that we had some שפחה that we took captive and they took away.

What drove חז"ל to interpret that?

Because after all,

aside from the Jewish people sinned like with עמלק they had sinned with רפידים,

and when they sinned with the מרגלים...

the Jewish people here were operating on a miraculous level and nobody would die,

nobody would be harmed in any wars.

So if the גויים were able to take a captive,

must be that they took somebody that was,

that we had already taken a captive.

He says,

בכל מלחמת מצוה לא נפקד מהם איש,

כל ימי משה.

Okay.

על דרך הפשט,

he says that nobody was killed,

but they were able to take captives.

Okay.

Why did the,

why did the Torah have to tell us that?

So the רמב״ן says the following.

וזכיר הכתוב הזה להודיע כי במלחמה הזאת גבר כנעני וידר ישראל נדר הזה להחרים.

The fact that the כנעני had this minor victory,

that's what caused us to realize that this isn't necessarily going to be an

easy battle if the כנענים were,

had this limited success and therefore we took a נדר that we're going to

be מחרימים whatever,

we're going to be מחרימים these כנענים when we conquer them.

Not all the כנענים,

but these כנענים.

And the רמב״ן adds something very interesting.

The last few lines before פסוק ט.

ויתכן שנאמר עוד כי קצף השם על הכנעני הזה בעבור שבא מארץ מרחקים להילחם

בישראל ולא ירא אלוקים רצה שיהיה לחרם על כן הגבירו מתחילה כדי שידרו נדר

להשם.

So the רמב״ן says the following.

Why did הקדוש ברוך הוא give the כנענים this success?

Because הקדוש ברוך הוא wanted the Jewish people to take a נדר.

Wanted us to דאוון and to take this נדר.

So therefore הקדוש ברוך הוא gave them a success,

not because הקדוש ברוך הוא wanted the כנענים to be successful per se,

but he wanted us to fight harder against them.

So therefore they had this minor success.

So nobody knows God's plans and now we clearly God is being involved because

otherwise to have this guy,

like,

it's true that he's his 80th birthday and you know,

some might say that he's losing it,

but such a big turnaround,

so God's got something in mind and we hope and assume that if we

do what we're meant to do then הקדוש ברוך הוא will see to it

that something good will come from all this.

Okay,

נחש נחשת.

The רמב״ן says that the reason for נחש נחשת,

he says that somehow על פי טבע,

we're not sure we understand this טבע,

but he says that the נחש which is the cause of the sickness,

if you look at that נחש,

that would actually cause you to get even sicker.

So הקדוש ברוך הוא wanted to show what a miracle this is.

Okay.

פסוק כ״א.

וישלח ישראל מלאכים אל סיחון,

king of the Amorites.

The Jewish people,

they sent Sichon,

they offered a peace agreement.

We'll give you billions of dollars if you're willing to continue developing nuclear weapons

and we'll trust you.

As somebody said,

some guy from the Emirates said,

out of all the 8.4 billion people in the world,

there's only two people in this whole wide world that trust the Iranians.

That is the President and the Vice President.

But whatever.

So back to the רמב״ן.

So in any case,

so משה רבנו sends מלאכים to,

offering peace to סיחון.

Did he need to do so?

So רש״י says no,

from the ז׳

אומות,

you don't have to do so.

The רמב״ן says,

well hey,

it is true that משה רבנו didn't have to offer the terms that he

did,

but to offer peace,

one is meant to do even by the כנענים.

Just the terms which,

the terms for that peace are more strict by the כנענים than for others.

Now he does say that משה רבנו was going above and beyond the call

of duty in that when you offer peace to the כנענים,

then that peace is meant to be with the understanding that they will be

under our control and they'll pay a מס.

Over here,

משה רבנו didn't want to,

he offered that we're just going to pass by,

pass through סיחון,

without conquering them altogether.

So why is this so?

Why did he make this offer?

Says the רמב״ן for the following reason.

סיחון in principle is part of,

the land of סיחון,

עבר הירדן is part of ארץ ישראל.

But nevertheless משה רבנו intended that the Jewish people all live together on the

left side of the Jordan.

After all,

the holiness of עבר הירדן in a certain sense is less and משה רבינו

if not for the request of ראובן and גד would have seen to it

that everybody would live on the left side.

I'm sorry,

half of מנשה?

Maybe.

Half of מנשה,

that's not so clear that they were,

whatever,

that's a different story.

So take a look רבותי,

we're in a few lines in to פסוק כ"א.

He says ארץ סיחון ועוג ירושתם של ישראל היתה כי לאמורי היא וראוי היה

מן הדין שיענשו לו פתחו להם שיהיה כל העמים נמצאים בה למס ולעבד ומשה

רבנו היה יודע כי ישראל עתה לא יכבשו כל עשרה עמים והיה חפץ שיהיה

כל קדושה מעבר לירדן והלאה שיהיה מושבם יחד ושיהיה הארץ הטובה שהיא זבת חלב

ודבש הלא תראה שאם לא בקשו ממנו בני גד בני ראובן לא הניח שם

אדם על שדה לה חרבה וכן שנו בספרי לעשות לך פרט לעבר הירדן שנטלת

מעצמך.

One doesn't bring ביכורים on עבר הירדן because that's something which is not called

לעשות לך,

rather we took it on our own so to speak,

you know,

ראובן and גד.

ואמרו רבותינו בעשר קדושות שאין עבר הירדן ראוי לבית המקדש להשראת שכינה.

Famous משנה beginning of הכלים,

some ברייתא related to that,

but talks about עשר קדושות and says that עבר הירדן is not ראוי for

the בית המקדש and for השראת השכינה.

וכן בכתוב at the end of ספר יהושע,

אך אם טמאה ארץ אחוזתכם.

Refers to עבר הירדן as being טמא.

Big מחלוקת מפרשים what that means,

that really it's considered to be טמא or just if it's טמא to you?

יהושע,

פנחס,

is it פנחס?

Yeah,

that's telling them when the מזבח they built,

that מזבח by the,

I think that was פנחס there after the time of יהושע,

I'm not sure.

OK,

fine.

Skipping to פסוק ל"ד,

אל תירא אותו.

So משה רבינו expresses fear,

I'm sorry,

הקדוש ברוך הוא tells משה רבינו don't be afraid of עוג.

The implication is that there would have been room for משה רבינו to be

fearful.

So says רמב"ן,

כי היה משה ירא שמא תעמוד לו זכותו של אברהם שנאמר בו ויבא הפליט

ויגד לאברם העברי והוא עוג שפלט מן הרפאים שהכו אמרפל וחבריו בעשתרות קרנים לשון

רש"י מדברי רבותינו.

So נתעוררו also by the,

but the "gam" is not important for us now.

So נתעוררו,

that which חז"ל they came up with an explanation of why משה would be

afraid,

מדעתם because they,

חז"ל understood שלא ירא משה רבינו,

there's no הוה אמינא that משה רבינו would be afraid of the fact that

עוג was such a tall,

mighty fellow.

That wouldn't phase משה רבינו.

כי לא ירא משה רבנו מזרוע בשר כי עמו ה' אלוהינו.

He doesn't point this out on the bottom,

but this is לכאורה a paraphrasing of which פסוק?

לא תירא מהם כי ה' אלוהיך עמך.

Ah,

that we're not meant to be afraid when we go to war because הקדוש

ברוך הוא is with us.

When is הקדוש ברוך הוא with us?

Well,

when we try to keep the מחנה holy.

And hence,

כל הכבוד to Rabbi Fendel and others,

you know,

that said no way are we going to allow הסדרניקים to be in mixed

units.

In any case,

וכל הגויים כאין נגדו כמאפס ותוהו נחשבו לו.

והוא המזהיר את ישראל אל תיראו ואל תערצו מפניהם.

משה רבינו is the one who admonished the Jewish people,

don't be afraid.

משה רבינו is so critical of the מרגלים והוא המאשים אותם מיראתם כי כנאמר

מרגלים ואומר לכם אל תערצו ולא תיראו מהם ה' אלוהיכם ההולך לפניכם.

So it must be that משה's fear was because of the זכות that עוג

had.

על דרך הפשט he could explain differently.

על דרך הפשט,

the הוה אמינא to be afraid is not so much that he'd be afraid

and say okay I'm afraid I'm not going to conquer them.

The הוה אמינא was that the Jewish people,

they now had the option of just going around סיחון and not conquering it.

So הקדוש ברוך הוא he says don't be afraid.

The main point is don't try to circumvent סיחון,

rather wage war against him.

ועל דרך הפשט לא היה בדעתו של משה להוריש עתה ישראל ארץ סיחון ועוג

כאשר פירשתי.

But so סיחון,

he approached us,

he didn't leave much of choice,

but עוג,

he gathered forces,

and in theory we could have not conquered them.

So הקדוש ברוך הוא says don't be afraid,

go and wage a war against him.

Okay.

To review some things which we've seen,

the רמב"ן,

on just that טומאת מת is based on the fact that the יצר הרע,

the שטן injects some טומאה,

and on this basis says that צדיקים עם מיתתם are not מטמאי.

The רמב"ן spoke of the דין of טומאת אוהל,

that normally a building itself doesn't become טמא,

but an אוהל,

a tent at times does.

Pointed out that although it only mentions here טומאת מגע and משא,

but there's טומאת מגע and אוהל,

there's also טומאת משא,

which is learned קל וחומר from נבילה.

He talked about certain קולות in חרב הרי הוא כחלל,

and amongst them the fact that a כהן is not מוזהר on חרב הרי

הוא כחלל.

Okay.

The רמב"ן mentioned רש"י פשט in the חטא of משה רבינו,

he disagrees with it,

mentioned the רמב"ם פשט,

he disagrees with it,

he says על פי פשט it's the fact that it says נוציא לכם מים,

rather than playing up the fact that הקדוש ברוך הוא would be מוציא מים.

The רמב"ן points out that this כנעני

מלך ערד is coming from עבר הירדן to wage war against the Jewish people,

and when the פסוק says the Jewish people they conquered their the cities of

the city of ערד,

this is something which didn't take place yet,

because the Jewish people they didn't enter ארץ ישראל yet,

but rather something that will take place in the future.

וישב ממנו שבי,

רמב"ן quotes חז"ל that this means some שפחה which they had taken שבי,

he explains that what drove חז"ל to say that's the fact that during the

times of משה רבינו then unless there was some particular חטא,

then no harm came to the Jewish people.

The רמב"ן says,

why did הקדוש ברוך הוא give this limited success to the כנענים?

Well,

הקדוש ברוך הוא wanted the כנענים to be punished.

Why did he want them to be punished?

Because they had the חוצפה to wage war,

to come to the Jewish people when the Jewish people were not about to

conquer them,

to wage war against the Jewish people.

So הקדוש ברוך הוא wanted them to take a lickin',

to be beaten,

and therefore הקדוש ברוך הוא gave them a minor success so that the Jewish

people would take this נדר,

would דאווען with סיעתא דשמיא to overcome them.

Okay.

משה רבינו sends מלאכים to סיחון,

both רש"י and the רמב"ן agree that this was לפנים משורת הדין.

The רמב"ן explains that לפנים משורת הדין isn't the fact that he sent for

peace to the כנענים,

because there is such an obligation,

the רמב"ן holds.

But rather the fact that משה רבינו said we're just going to pass through,

rather than telling them that our terms for peace is that you'll be you'll

need to pay some tax and be subservient to us.

And he says that משה רבינו intention was not to conquer עבר הירדן now,

due to the fact that he wanted all the Jewish people to be together

on left side of the Jordan.

The רמב"ן explained what the הווה אמינא was of משה רבינו being afraid of

עוג.

He quotes חז"ל,

he has some alternative פשט,

but he says it's דבר פשוט that the fear of משה רבינו was not

due to the natural strength of עוג.

In the פסוק before,

by the way,

it says some difficult פסוקים,

בואו חשבון וכולי,

some פסוק speaks of that כמוש,

the name of the עבודה זרה of מואב,

נתן בניו פליטים ובנותיו בשבית,

that he had his sons and daughters be taken captive,

lose in battle.

And the רמב"ן explains that בניו ובנותיו means those that believe in him,

that this.

כמוש *Chemosh*,

its עבודה זרה *avodah zarah* was not very happy,

helpful to those that believe in him because after all they were conquered by

סיחון *Sihon*.

Okay,

and the