Subscribe
Share
Share
Embed
Shiurim by Rabbi Shlomo Friedman in KBY.
Enjoyed? Your feedback means a lot to us. Click here to email us: https://tinyurl.com/thanksEN
The Ramban explains about seven lines in וטעם טומאת המת why is it that
a מת is מטמא?
בעטיו של נחש because the עצה of the נחש that the 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 מעיקר הדין.
A person that's very righteous and he dies מיתת נשיקה מעיקר הדין is not
טמא.
והוא שאמרו צדיקים אינם מטמאין.
You have the statement of חז"ל that צדיקים are not מטמא.
Now it should be pointed out that this statement that צדיקים are not מטמא,
so in the גמרא you have ביום שמת רבי בטלה טומאה which could be
understood to mean along the lines this idea that צדיקים are not מטמא מיתתם,
but those the others understand that when it says ביום שמת רבי בטלה כהונה
what that means is the following.
Let's say there's 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's a person that there is some 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's
no טומאה altogether by a צדיק and that צדיקים are not מטמא.
This is נוגע to any כהנים here.
Okay,
yes,
we 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
that the way it's constructed,
you'd have to learn the משניות of אהלות and figure out what the מציאות
is,
but it could be that the מציאות over there is one which dictates that
there wouldn't necessarily be טומאה.
The fact that there's 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,
might be more common for people to die in the אהל so אדם כי
ימות באהל the תורה says that there's טומאה.
Now the תורה over 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...
Well,
depends on which material it's manufactured from,
the אהל itself could become טמא.
The תורה speaks of this situation to tell you the דין of the טומאה
of the אהל itself and also to tell you most of the Jewish people
they did live in אהלים at the time.
Okay.
The רמב"ן points out here in the פרשה you have טומאת מגע,
you have טומאת אהל.
What's missing?
טומאת משא.
The רמב"ן says טומאת משא we learn from a קל וחומר from נבלה.
A נבלה is מטמא משא,
קל וחומר a מת.
Okay.
The רמב"ן in the next piece in פסוק י"ז talks about the concept of
חרב הרי הוא כחלל.
A הלכה 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 דוקא killed by a חרב?
The טומאה of a מת is the same regardless whether he died with a
חרב or died by having a sixteen ton weight fall on him.
Why does the תורה דוקא mention חלל חרב?
So חז"ל understand this is coming to teach us that חרב הרי הוא כחלל.
A metal object or maybe even 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 שמעתא remember from דף נ"ב talks a little about חרב הרי
הוא כחלל.
So רמב"ן indicates certain קולות in חרב הרי הוא כחלל.
Number one,
it's not מטמא באהל.
If there's a metal object that touched a מת and now that metal object
is found in a certain אהל,
so that does not cause everything in the אהל to become טמא.
Also it doesn't require הזיה 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 the first
הזיה not earlier than יום שלישי and then another הזיה on a number of
days after that,
הזיה שלישי ושביעי.
So a person became טמא with חרב כחלל doesn't require הזיה 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
אהל המת,
but nevertheless he is not מוזהר on חרב הרי הוא כחלל.
Okay,
there are those that are מחמיר on that,
but famous line of שלח רבנו חיים כהן לרבנו תם איזה בית אשר תבנו
לי כי אין בית אשר אין שם מת.
Whatever.
And continues the רמב"ן.
The רמב"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 they're different קדשים.
Okay.
The חטא of משה רבנו in מי מריבה.
I assume that's a new section on my page רע"ג.
If anybody has an old רמב"ן I'm sure that's a new paragraph.
We're in פסוק א'.
החטא משה רבנו במי מריבה אינו מפורש בכתוב.
Page שמ"ו.
החטא משה רבנו במי מריבה אינו מפורש בכתוב.
רש"י has the famous פשט 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 רבנו 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 can threaten
to shoot at the rock it's not going to give you water.
So he doesn't think that that is correct.
And there are apparently 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.
Then he quotes the רמב"ם.
רמב"ם has a famous פשט which the רמב"ם says look at this פשט it's
such a wonderful פשט.
רמב"ן says it's 100% wrong.
What's that פשט of the רמב"ם?
See after 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 ורבי משה we're about six lines on page רע"ד.
ורבי משה סבר בזו סברא 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 ההוא חילול
השם מתנועותיו his movements וכל מדבריו ילמדו ויקבלו ויגיעו בהם אל הצלחת העולם הזה
והעולם הבא.
They assumed do like משה רבינו and you'll become have הצלחה in this world
the world to come.
ואיך יראה עליו הכעס והוא מהפעולות הרעות ולא תבוא כי אם מתכונת 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 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 ותעינו ספק מספקי התורה שנאמרו
בו דברים רבים נשאל פעמים רבים איזה חטא חטא ראה מה שנאמר בו ומה
שאמרנו בו אנחנו ואמת יורה דרכו.
Compare my פשט to the פשט of others says the רמב"ם and you'll 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 says הוסיף הבל על הבלים.
He says it doesn't fit in the psukim.
Says מריתם פי,
it says לא האמנתם בי שלא האמינו בו ואין העונש בראש הכעס and he
says hey there is 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 and other 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
kids do 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 that's 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 him about that is 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 you tell him I love you very much but
you did something really bratty and you need to get...
given a פאטש.
So maybe רמב"ם would say that hey,
that which משה רבינו later says שמעו נא המרים,
okay,
he needs to give them מוסר.
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.
So therefore,
you know,
at that point,
it was improper,
perhaps.
In any case,
besides,
says the רמב"ן,
what's this got to do with אהרן?
אהרן presumably never got angry.
ובשלום ומישור הלך.
And besides,
he says,
and here's an important line,
ועוד שאפשר שלא כעס קצף גדול מאת השם עליהם בסור מפי משה.
Certainly הקדוש ברוך הוא did get angry at the Jewish people.
Why?
It says ובכל הנסיונות במדבר חטאם הגדול כשאמרו למה העליתנו ממצרים,
expressing this idea of why'd you take us out of Egypt,
indicating שרצו להיות עבדים לשונאיהם בעבודת פרך—they would prefer to be slaves of somebody
that hates them,
בעבודת פרך—rather than be מלהיות עם האלקים כבן העובד את אביו.
That's a terrible thing to say that it would be better to serve פרעה
than to serve God.
That's a terrible thing,
says רמב"ן.
This רמב"ן is very important because it addresses the obvious question,
you know,
which when we speak about the importance of יציאת מצרים,
the תורה says that הקדוש ברוך הוא took us out of מצרים,
why?
להיות לכם לאלקים,
for us to be servants,
slaves of הקדוש ברוך הוא.
So you might ask,
well,
hey,
so before we were slaves and now we're slaves?
What did we gain?
So a very important part of the answer is that you can't compare being
a slave to a פרעה that hates you,
being a slave,
a servant of הקדוש ברוך הוא that loves you.
And presumably the רמב"ן would also add that this servitude to God is something
which exists,
as רמב"ן tells us in פרשת כי תצא,
not based on something which הקדוש ברוך הוא needs,
but because הקדוש ברוך הוא wants us to be ראוי to have a proper
relationship with Him.
Okay.
In any case,
and the רמב"ן further,
he asks at the end of page רע"ה,
he says,
the פסוק says explicitly in תהלים,
ויקציפו על מי מריבה וירע למשה בעבורם.
ויקציפו,
they caused הקדוש ברוך הוא to get angry.
I guess maybe ויקציפו could be understood that they caused משה רבינו to get
angry,
they caused משה רבינו to lose his temper.
Maybe that's how the רמב"ם would explain.
In any case,
ובקרוב מן הדברים שנאמרו בזה והוא טוב לדחות השואל,
and the best פשט that you could use when people ask you—which sounds like
this is not the real פשט,
but it says—the problem is,
דברי רבינו חננאל שכתב כי החטא הוא אמרם המן הסלע הזה נוציא לכם מים.
You had the potential here for a great קידוש השם,
but משה,
it says,
המן הסלע הזה נוציא,
as if to say that we're doing it.
They were meant to focus on the fact that הקדוש ברוך הוא is doing
this,
and that was the sin.
וראוי שיאמרו יוציא השם לכם מים.
After all this though,
he does say that the true פשט is something על פי סוד.
He has such a line,
I don't see it now.
והאמת כי עניין סוד גדול מסתרי התורה,
כאשר אמר לו הנני עומד לפניך,
some סוד מסתרי התורה and again,
the kabbalistic parts we skip.
Okay.
Skipping to,
skipping to,
skipping to פסוק י"ט.
Within the פסוק,
the Jewish people twice they asked to pass through different countries.
They asked to pass through אדום and also through סיחון,
was it?
When they asked to pass through אדום,
they say,
עד אשר נעבור גבולך.
המן הסלע הזה נוציא לכם מים.
So what does this mean?
Does this mean that it's impossible that God won't create such a miracle?
אבן עזרא explains that this is a rhetorical question.
Do you think that בדרך הטבע 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 coming from God.
רמב"ן has some other פשט,
but I'm sorry,
I overlooked this,
so you guys on your own will figure out what the פשט of the
רמב"ן is.
Skipping to...
passing through סיחון and they
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 בגבולך and
they don't say to the land which הקדוש ברוך הוא promised us?
He says,
well that would arouse the קנאה of עשיו 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.
The Jewish people,
it says וישמע כנעני מלך ערד יושב 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 started 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 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's 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 that's in 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 the רמב"ן quotes the אונקלוס that says that they came the way of
the מרגלים.
So the 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 and of course there were forty years that passed and
how they know the Jewish people are still there?
I don't know,
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.
Ah,
רש"י says the שכינה left.
Okay.
The 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 גוים were able to take a captive,
it must be that they took somebody that was a captive that we had
already taken captive.
It 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 תורה have to tell us that?
So the רמב"ן says the following.
ויזכר הכתוב הזה להודיע כי בראות ישראל מתחלה כי גבר הכנעני נדרו הנדר 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 כנעני had this limited success.
And therefore we took a נדר that we're going to be מחרים whatever the
כנעני we're going to be מחרים 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 ה' על הכנעני הזה בעבור שבא מארץ מרחקים להלחם
בישראל ולא ירא אלוקים ורצה שיהיה לחרם על כן הגביר אותו מתחילה כדי שידרו
נדר לה'.
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 the 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 now.
Clearly God is being involved because otherwise to have this guy,
like it's true that he's hit 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.
And 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 should cause you to get even sicker.
So הקדוש ברוך הוא wanted to show what this is that okay.
פסוק כ"א.
וישלח ישראל מלאכים אל סיחון.
The Jewish people they sent סיחון an offer a peace agreement.
We'll give you billions of dollars if you are 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 רבינו sends מלאכים to offering a peace to סיחון.
Did he need to do so?
So רש"י says no.
From the שבע אומות,
you don't have to do so.
The רמב"ן says well hey,
it is true that משה רבינו 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 רבינו 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 רבינו 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 רבינו 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 וגד would have seen
to it that everybody would live live on the left side.
I'm sorry?
חצי מנשה?
Maybe.
חצי 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,
וזהו מן הדין והיה מן הדין שיניחו שלא יפתחו להם שיהיו כל העם נמצאים
במעבר עבדיהם.
ומשה רבינו היה יודע כי ישראל עתה לא יכבשו כל עשרה עממין,
והיה חפץ שיהיה כל כיבושם מעבר לירדן והלאה,
שיהיה מושבם יחד,
ושהיא הארץ הטובה שהיא זבת חלב ודבש.
הלא תראה שאם לא ביקשו ממנו בני גד ובני ראובן,
לא היה מניחם שם עתה על שתי החבריא.
וכן שנו בספרי "לתת לך" פרט לעבר הירדן שנתת מעצמך.
One doesn't bring doesn't say מקרא ביכורים on עבר הירדן because that's something which
is not called לתת לך,
rather we took it on our own so to speak,
you know ראובן וגד.
ועוד אמרו רבותינו בעשר קדושות שאין עבר הירדן ראוי לבית המקדש ולהשראת שכינה.
Famous משנה beginning of כלים,
there's 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 הכתוב בסוף 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?
פינחס.
Is it פינחס?
Yeah,
that's telling them one that that מזבח they build that מזבח by the—so I
think that was פינחס or after the death of יהושע,
I'm not sure.
Okay.
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 "ויבא הפליט ויגד לאברם העברי",
והוא עוג שפלט מן הרפאים שהכו אמרפל וחבריו בעשתרות קרנים,
לשון רש"י מדברי רבותינו.
ונתעוררו גם בזה—what the gam is that's not important for us now—ונתעוררו,
that which חז"ל they came up with an explanation of why משה would be
afraid,
מדעתם,
because they חז"ל understood שלא יירא 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.
שלא יירא משה רבינו מבשר ודם,
כי עמו ה' אלקינו.
He doesn't point this out on the bottom,
but this is לכאורה a paraphrasing which פסוק?
לא תירא מהם כי ה' אלקיך עמך.
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 הגוים כאין נגדו,
כהפס ותוהו נחשבו לו.
והוא המזהיר את ישראל "אל תיראו ואל תערצו מפניהם".
משה רבינו gives מוסר to the Jewish people,
don't be afraid.
משה רבינו is so critical of the מרגלים.
והוא מאשים אותם ביראתם,
שנאמר "מרגלים,
ואומר לכם אל תערצון ולא תיראון מהם,
ה' אלקיכם ההולך לפניכם".
So it must be that משה רבינו's fear was because of the זכות that
עוג had.
על דרך הפשט,
you 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 says don't be afraid,
the main point is don't try to circumvent סיחון,
rather wage war against him.
ועל דרך הפשט לא היתה בדעתו של משה להוריש עתה ישראל ארץ סיחון ועוג
כאשר פירשתי.
But see,
so סיחון,
he approached us,
didn't leave much of a 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 in the רמב"ן,
understand that טומאת מת is based on the fact that the יצר הרע,
the שטן injects some טומאה.
And on this basis,
says that צדיקים במותם are not מטמא.
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 doesn't mention here טומאת מגע and משא,
but there's טומאת מגע and אוהל,
but there's also טומאת משא,
which is learned קל וחומר from נבלה.
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's פשט in the חטא of משה רבינו,
he disagrees with it.
Mentioned the רמב"ם's 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 come from עבר הירדן to wage war against the
Jewish people.
And when the פסוק says the Jewish people they conquered their,
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 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 take a,
you know,
to be beaten.
And therefore הקדוש ברוך הוא gave them a minor success so that the Jewish
people would take this נדר,
would דאוון,
would have סייעתא 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,
that you'll need to pay some מס,
tax,
and be subservient to us.
And he says that משה רבינו's intention was not to conquer עבר הירדן now
due to the fact that he wanted all the Jewish people to be together
on the left side of the Jordan.
The רמב"ן explain what the הוה אמינא was of משה רבינו being afraid of
עוג.
He quotes חז"ל,
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,
על כן יאמרו המושלים בואו חשבון וכולי.
There's 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.
was not very helpful,
those that believe in him because after all they were conquered by סיחון.
Okay,
everyone,
גוט שבת.