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
If there's enough רמב״ןs for using the standard edition which we have,
that would be better,
simply because if we want to do some reading inside then using the standard
edition it will be easier for people to find the place.
So you have on Zvulun's table,
on Chevy's table,
there is some רמב״ןs,
so feel free to take a רמב״ן.
Okay,
you need this is we want a רמב״ן,
so it's important to have a חומש.
But which is the standard one?
Those,
that,
that there,
one of those,
all those רמב״ןs are standard רמב״ןs.
Don't judge a book by its cover.
I did.
How did Avi know?
Okay,
רבותי.
As you know,
the רמב״ן was one of the great ראשונים who has also חידושים on the
גמרא and also חידושים על התורה.
I think that one of the indications of the importance that the Jewish people
give to the רמב״ן is the fact that in ישיבת כרם ביבנה,
when it was decided that there would be שיעור on Friday morning,
so each of the three רבנים that are giving שיעור independently decided we're going
to be doing רמב״ן.
Although the רמב״ן being done in the different שיעורים is the same רמב״ן,
but I think that,
רב,
I understand that Rabbi Zuckerman is focusing on the רמב״ן in פרשת יתרו,
a lot of רמב״ן there,
and I think Rabbi,
Rabbi Finkelstein,
he's perhaps selecting some broad themes in the רמב״ן.
Our focus more on רמב״ן,
בקיאות if you will,
on the פרשה.
We'll obviously not be doing all the רמב״ןs in the פרשה,
because we're meant to finish by 9:50,
but so we'll be doing some selected רמב״ןs on פרשת נח.
Okay.
As we mentioned yesterday,
the רמב״ן's פירוש is one which also enhances our understanding of the פסוקים,
but also gives us some basic השקפה,
teaches us the השקפה of the תורה.
There are parts of the רמב״ן which involve דקדוק,
which we're not going to be spending time on due to the fact that
there are times when I try to avoid discussing things which I know nothing
about,
not always,
and the kabbalistic parts which the רמב״ן himself tells us in his introduction to
skip if we're not מקובלים.
The רמב״ן does have an important,
a beautiful introduction to his פירוש על התורה,
which maybe we'll find some opportunity to do.
Generally speaking,
on the פרשיות of בראשית,
there is a significant amount of רמב״ן.
So for now we'll be focusing on the רמב״ן on the פרשה.
Okay.
Page נ״א.
אלה תולדת נח,
טעמו,
its meaning,
so פירשו בו קורותיו,
there are those that say that אלה תולדת נח doesn't simply mean like the
literal translation,
that these are the children of נח,
but rather his story,
what happened to him,
כטעם as in the פסוק מה ילד יום,
there's an expression מה ילד יום,
which means what happens during the day.
ירמוז על כל הפרשה,
if you assume that אלה תולדת נח means this is the story of נח,
so that is basically a title for the entire פרשה.
But the רמב״ן says ואינו נכון בעיני,
the רמב״ן himself feels that אלה תולדת נח is not the heading for the
entire פרשה,
but rather is just the heading for that which the תורה goes ahead and
tells us,
his children.
Now,
presumably one of the things which might have driven some מפרשים to understand אלה
תולדת נח as a heading for the entire פרשה is this first פסוק itself.
After all,
as you know,
if you have a חומש you could look inside,
but you probably know the פסוק by heart.
The פסוק says,
אלה תולדת נח נח איש צדיק תמים היה בדרתיו את האלקים התהלך נח,
and then the next פסוק,
ויולד נח שלשה בנים.
So if you would understand like the רמב״ן himself feels is the case,
and רש״י also indicates,
that אלה תולדת נח is כפשוטו,
these are the children of נח,
then it's not clear why the תורה throws in that נח איש צדיק תמים
היה בדורותיו ואת אלוקים התהלך נח before it tells us his children.
But if you would say that אלה תולדות נח is a heading for the
entire פרשה,
then it's understandable.
In any case,
so if you do understand that אלה תולדות נח is referring to נח's children,
then you have to deal with why the תורה throws that in as רש״י,
as רש״י does,
the רמב״ן indicates,
like the פירוש of רש״י,
that parenthetically we mention that נח was a צדיק.
Okay.
And furthermore,
that which the פסוק says,
ויולד נח שלושה בנים,
which is seemingly redundant once we already said אלה תולדות נח,
is due to the fact that we interrupted the אלה תולדות נח with telling
us that נח was a צדיק.
Okay.
In any case,
the רמב״ן then,
in the continuation of this piece,
addresses the following issue.
And here I'll point out a general point.
There are six days in between one פרשה and the next.
The result of that is we sometimes forget what took place at the end
of a given פרשה by the time it's,
by the time we get around to reading the next פרשה.
And if we would realize what took place last week,
then we'd sometimes have some difficulties.
For example,
over here,
the תורה already told us at the end of last week's פרשה that נח
had three children,
שם,
חם,
ויפת.
So why would the תורה need to tell us again?
A similar difficulty exists with at the end of פרשת לך לך,
we read that הקדוש ברוך הוא tells אברהם אבינו that he'll have a child
from,
from שרה אמנו,
and presumably we would have expected him to tell that to שרה אמנו.
And then in the beginning of פרשת וירא,
then we're told big news:
אברהם אבינו was told that they'll have a child,
and שרה אמנו hears,
and she laughs as if it's something new.
But didn't she already know that from the end of the previous פרשה?
So she forgot in the six days.
So whatever,
that's,
so I'm just pointing out that when one reads the פסוקים,
he's meant to keep in mind what took place in the past,
which will sometimes make one ask questions about the...
So in any case,
the רמב״ן says that the point is the following:
when it tells us in this week's פרשה,
ויולד נח שלושה בנים את שם את חם ואת יפת,
the point is not to tell us that he had these three children,
but to tell us that he only had these three children.
In contrast to what the standard was,
the תורה tells us that ויולד בנים ובנות,
נח did not have other בנים ובנות,
not at this point.
He did intend to have more children after the מבול,
except for the fact that according to חז״ל,
חם or כנען came along and prevented him from being able to have more
children.
So וזה טעם,
let's see what line is וזה,
about seven lines down:
וזה טעם שלושה בנים כי הזכיר מספרם לומר כי אלה שלושה לבדם היו תולדותיו
וניצלו בזכותו ומאלה נפצה הארץ.
So they were saved בזכותו.
Let's address the following issue:
שם,
חם,
ויפת,
why were they saved from the מבול?
נח,
I understand,
was a צדיק.
What about שם,
חם,
ויפת?
So רמב״ן seems to deliberate,
were they saved because presumably נח was מחנך his children,
and thus they were also righteous?
That's something which רמב״ן indicates at some point.
רש״י also mentions that?
Okay.
עיקר תולדותיהם של צדיקים מעשים טובים?
So what's that tell us about חם?
Oh,
not חם.
So the,
the,
so the רמב״ן entertains the possibility that also his children were righteous,
which is interesting,
because we don't normally associate righteousness and Ham and חם,
they don't normally go together.
He also raised the possibility that maybe they were saved בזכותו,
that's what he seems to indicate over here,
וניצלו בזכותו.
It would be a punishment for נח if his children would die.
I'm sorry?
So again,
what,
what within,
there is the possibility that his children were not righteous,
but were saved בזכות נח,
that it would be a punishment.
In what context should רש״י mention that?
Okay,
רש״י is just addressing the issue of how to understand the phrase אלה תולדות
נח,
נח איש צדיק.
What's נח איש צדיק got to do with אלה תולדות נח?
So רש"י has two approaches,
whether נח איש
צדיק is parenthetical,
or נח איש צדיק is telling you that his the first child that he
gave birth to was נח himself through נח doing מעשים טובים.
Okay.
We have over here a significant in Hebrew it's called a שחקן חיזוק,
some player that comes along to strengthen the,
I don't know what the word is in English.
Okay.
In the continuation,
the רמב"ן addresses the phrase תמים היה בדורותיו.
What does the בדורותיו come to tell us?
So as you know,
רש"י has two פירושים.
According to one,
it's לשבח,
according to the other,
לגנאי.
So according to רש"י,
the two possibilities of בדורותיו is either despite his generation,
that's the פשט in רש"י that it was לשבח.
Despite his generation,
despite the fact it's such a lousy generation,
nevertheless נח was righteous.
He wasn't negatively influenced by what's going on in the social media and all
the filth out there in the street.
According to the other פירוש in רש"י,
it's לגנאי,
דהיינו that בדורותיו is relative to his generation.
He was righteous relative,
compared to his generation he was righteous.
However,
the רמב"ן himself feels that it's coming to tell us not the quality of
his righteousness,
despite his generation,
relative to his generation,
rather the uniqueness of his righteousness,
in the sense that in all those generations,
he was the only one in all those generations before נח,
after נח,
he was the only righteous fellow that was around.
Or in those generations הקדוש ברוך הוא realizes the only righteous person that was
around,
and therefore He saved him.
והנכון בעיני,
five lines from bottom,
first one line is והנכון,
we're still on page נ"א,
והנכון בעיני לפי הפשט,
שלבדו היה צדיק בדורות ההם,
אין בדורותיו צדיק,
לא תמים זולתו.
Okay.
Skipping to in the next רמב"ן,
he points out that the order of the children,
which most מפרשים I think not all agree to,
was יפת,
שם,
and חם.
Some proof from the פסוקים later that שם was not the בכור,
sometimes mentioned first due to his importance.
Okay.
פסוק י"ג.
פסוק says מלאה הארץ חמס.
So the רמב"ן addresses the following issue.
The פסוק says ויאמר אלקים לנח קץ כל בשר בא לפני כי מלאה הארץ
חמס מפניהם והנני משחיתם את הארץ.
But was that the only עבירה?
Well,
before,
it mentioned ותשחת הארץ לפני האלקים,
ותמלא הארץ חמס.
חמס was one of the עבירות,
but there were other עבירות as well.
So why,
when הקדוש ברוך הוא tells נח that He's going to destroy the world,
why does He mention the חמס?
So says the רמב"ן,
if anybody's interested in the biscuits,
raise your hand.
In any case,
so says רמב"ן,
חמס הוא הגזל והעושק,
ונתן לנח הטעם בחמס ולא הזכיר השחתת הארץ,
השחתת הדרך,
גילוי עריות,
כי החמס הוא חטא הידוע והמפורסם.
That's the one that's famous and everybody sees the גזילה taking place.
רבותינו אמרו שעליו נחתם גזר דינם,
that although there were other עבירות,
but what sealed their fate was the חמס.
Why is that so?
והטעם מפני שהוא מצוה מושכלת,
אין להם צורך לנביא להזהיר.
In contrast to גילוי עריות,
which one might say two consenting adults,
so it's not,
but certainly חמס is something which is disgusting,
except if you happen to be the United Nations or most of the nations
of the world,
in which case חמאס,
well,
hey,
you know,
they're underprivileged,
and therefore they had to do what they're doing,
and whatever other stupid explanations and excuses are given.
So חמס is a מצוה מושכלת,
אין להם צורך לנביא להזהיר,
ועוד,
שרע לשמים ולבריות.
חמס is also רע לשמים,
also רע לבריות.
Okay.
Skipping to פסוק י"ט,
מכל בשר.
So רמב"ן over here deals with the size of the תיבה.
Was the תיבה big or small?
Well,
so relatively to the size that you might have expected for all the animals
that need to come into the תיבה,
so pretty small.
So רמב״ן addresses this.
So says רמב״ן,
ידוע כי החיות רבות מאוד,
והן גדולות כפילים וראמים וזולתם.
What's a פיל?
Elephant.
What's a ראם?
A big thing,
okay.
Normally we assume it's a buffalo,
but I don't know if that's what רמב״ן assumes,
because buffaloes are not that big.
Rhino?
Okay,
whatever.
So,
I don't know what's,
that's way bigger than elephant.
וזולתם,
והרמש והרומש על הארץ רב מאוד,
גם עוף השמים מינים רבים ואין להם מספר.
So many species of birds.
וכמו שאמרו רבותינו מאה ועשרים מיני עופות טמאים יש במזרח,
in the east,
I don't know where the east is.
There's 120 species of עופות טמאים,
and even those,
they are sub-species of an איה.
An איה is the name of bird that's mentioned in the list of non-kosher
birds.
ועופות טהורים אין מספר.
How do we know that there's more עופות טהורים than עופות טמאים?
So רש״י points out that the תורה,
when it comes to the birds,
it lists the non-kosher animal,
the non-kosher birds,
implying that the rest are kosher.
So says the רמב״ן,
ועופות טהורים אין מספר,
והוצרך להביא מכולם שיולידו כמותם,
וכאשר תאסוף לכולם מאכל אשר יאכל,
and you also need to bring food for all of them,
שנתים ימים לא תכיל אותם התיבה הזאת,
so wouldn't fit into such an ark,
ולא עשר כיוצא בהן.
So even 10 arks of this size wouldn't be big enough.
Rather,
says רמב״ן,
אבל הוא נס,
החזיק מעט את המרובה.
So now of course the question arises,
oh,
it's a נס?
So could have built a תיבה the size of this classroom and fit in
everything if it's a נס.
So he says,
ואם כן למה יעשנה קטנה ויסמוך על הנס הזה?
So the רמב״ן has two answers:
A,
that one of the reasons for building this תיבה was for PR,
for people to notice and people say,
"Hey,
נח,
what are you doing?" And he would tell them,
"I'm building an ark." Well,
why are you building an ark?
There's no body of water anywhere close.
So,
"Ah,
well in the future..." So,
ראה השם יתברך לעשותה גדולה כדי שיראו אותה בני דורו ויתמהו,
they will wonder,
ויספרו עליה,
and everybody will talk about it,
וידברו בענין המבול וכינוס הבהמה והחיה והעוף לתיבה,
אולי יעשו תשובה.
Would we have expected them to listen to נח?
So it could be,
let's keep in mind the fact,
let's keep in mind,
רבותי,
the fact that the,
רש״י writes that there was some mini-מבול which took place already during times of
אנוש.
So people knew that such things do happen,
right?
רש״י says that there was some that the אוקיינוס,
there was some major flood that flooded a third of the world.
So they should realize that such things can happen.
ועוד,
says רמב״ן,
עשו אותה גדולה למעט בנס,
כי כן הדרך בכל הניסים שבתורה ובנביאים לעשות מה שביד אדם לעשות,
והשאר יהיה בידי שמים.
So even when there is a נס,
but man is meant to do whatever he can.
Now,
he says you might say that it wasn't a נס,
it was something ordinary,
because after all,
maybe the אמות,
שלש מאות אמות,
were not רב חיים נאה אמות,
they were gezunte חזון איש אמות,
or whatever,
עוג מלך הבשן אמות,
they were very big אמות.
So no,
no,
no.
If the אמות were very big and people were big,
so presumably also the animals were big as well,
so he doesn't think that that's the solution.
Okay.
שנים מכל יבאו אליך להחיות,
פסוק כ׳.
So says רמב״ן,
הודיעו כי מעצמם יבאו לפניו שנים שנים.
He didn't need to hunt them down,
they would come on their own.
However,
the רמב״ן says that this is true in general,
but with respect to the kosher animals that was seven,
seven,
meaning 14 of each species,
that he was meant to do on his own.
Why?
So over here the רמב״ן says one thing,
and in other פסוקים he says something else.
I don't know how to resolve,
if you guys have a suggestion,
I'll be happy to hear later.
In any case,
he says with respect to the kosher animals that נח was meant to bring
on his own.
Why is that so?
אבל הבאים,
fourth line in פסוק כ׳,
כי הבאים להינצל לחיות להם זרע,
באים מאיליהם.
Those that were coming to be saved,
they came on their own.
But hey,
the kosher species,
that which there were so many,
wasn't so that they'd be saved,
because for that one pair would be good enough.
Rather,
why did he have so many of the kosher species,
רבותי?
Towards what end?
For קרבנות!
To שחט them!
So wouldn't be proper in a sense for הקדוש ברוך הוא to see to
it that the animals would come on their own to be שחט-ed,
to be slaughtered.
It's interesting,
they say,
"Ah,
to be שחט-ed is a כבוד!
That's a big מחיה!" So,
it's an interesting thought.
אבל באם יקריב עולות לא גזר שיבאו מעצמן להשחט.
Rather,
נח was meant to take them,
to gather them on his own.
Okay,
skipping to פסוק ח׳:
מן הבהמה הטהורה ומן הבהמה אשר איננה טהורה...
שנים שנים באו אל נח.
פירש רש״י:
כולם הושוו בענין זה.
שנים שנים means that was the minimum.
Okay.
And the רמב״ן says in the fourth line of that piece:
ונח הוסיף להביא מן הטהורים ששה זוגות,
כי בבואם להנצל באו מעצמם,
ואשר לצורך קרבן טרח במצוה.
So,
here he says that that which the kosher animals,
who didn't bring themselves,
is that נח should be טורח in the מצוה.
I don't know.
So,
צריך עיון how to resolve the two.
Skipping to,
רבותי,
וימח את כל היקום אשר על פני האדמה,
פסוק כ״ג.
What does it mean וימח?
So,
the רמב״ן addresses what וימח means,
and he also addresses the fact that the פסוק is seemingly redundant,
cause after all the פסוק says the פסוק says in כ״א,
ויגווע כל בשר,
that everything died.
So,
if that's the case,
okay,
so what's added by by וימח את כל היקום?
Not וימח,
וימח את כל היקום.
Rabbi Rubinstein עליו השלום,
I davened at the בית אבל today,
so I saw in his סידור,
he had the דקדוקים,
when it's meant to be שוא נע,
שוא נח,
when it's meant to have a דגש in the בית,
not דגש,
everything,
and also in the פסוקים.
I won't ask how many people say the פסוקים that are sometimes said in
the תפלה that's said when one puts on טלית,
before טלית and תפילין.
I won't ask that question,
because I don't want to incriminate myself.
But he also had there דקדוקים,
how to pronounce the words properly.
So,
in any case,
וימח את כל היקום.
So says the רמב״ן:
וימח את כל היקום אשר על פני האדמה,
אחרי שאמר ויגווע כל בשר ואמר מכל אשר בחרבה מתו,
so what's it adding?
הוסיף לומר וימח שנמחו הגופות בתוך המים כענין מחה על מי אמרים,
that everything was dissolved,
כי היו המים רותחים כדברי רבותינו.
Okay,
he has a discussion about the fish.
The fish didn't come into the תיבה,
didn't have an aquarium in the תיבה.
There was enough water outside.
So,
how did the fish survive?
So,
either the מבול didn't fall in the אוקינוס,
over the ocean,
and of course although there was a mix of waters,
but by the time,
you know,
in the ocean it wasn't,
didn't become that hot.
Or they swam to the depths,
the fish,
therefore were saved.
Okay,
skipping to פסוק ד׳.
The רמב״ן argues,
רש״י has some חשבון that the תיבה was י״א אמה in the water.
The רמב״ן doesn't accept that.
He has an interesting line that,
you know,
רש״י sometimes is comfortable with על פי פשט explaining the פסוק differently than the
מדרשים,
and the רמב״ן says,
"I'm also going to take such an approach,
and sometimes explain פסוקים in different fashion than the מדרשים do." Okay,
פסוק ה׳,
we're at פרק ח׳
פסוק ה׳,
page נ״ט.
The רמב״ן has a discussion.
As you know,
רש״י explains that sometimes when the תורה lists the months,
רש״י mentions some מחלוקת in the מדרש whether it's counting from תשרי,
counting from ניסן,
or the count of 150.
One of the counts is from when the מבול started falling,
another from when the waters,
when the מבול stopped.
The רמב״ן basic takes the approach that the count is always from תשרי.
The רמב״ן also by the way counts the 150 days,
not like רש״י.
He counts the 150 days from the beginning of the מבול,
not from after the 40 days of rain.
In any case,
the רמב״ן points out in terms of the months,
ודע,
five lines from bottom on page נ״ט:
ודע כי אחרי שהסכימו שבתשרי נברא עולם כאשר תקנו זה היום תחלת מעשיך זכרון
ליום ראשון.
Where's that line familiar to you from?
זה היום תחלת מעשיך זכרון ליום ראשון.
Where's that line familiar to you from?
זה היום תחילת מעשיך זיכרון ליום ראשון,
בריות בו יפקדו להזכירם לחיים ולמוות,
מי לא יפקד כיום הזה?
כי זיכרון
כל הבריות לפניך בא.
ראש השנה,
thank you.
And תפילת ראש השנה we say,
should have figured out from the context.
So we said that we assume,
it's clear in our תפילה,
that למסקנה we assume that the world was created in תשרי.
So כאשר תיקנו,
again,
we're five lines from the bottom,
זה יום תחילת מעשיך זיכרון ליום ראשון,
וכן הוא סדר הזמנים,
זרע וקציר.
It says זרע וקציר,
which sounds like it's counting from the beginning of the year.
So the זרע,
when is the planting season?
When is the planting season for grain?
Right now,
this time of year.
So you see also from there that the year begins with תשרי.
שיהיה ראש השנה מ-תשרי.
So the years begin with תשרי.
וכן החדשים,
and even the months were count from תשרי till יציאת מצרים.
Now what happened in יציאת מצרים?
Did the years change?
No!
Also after יציאת מצרים,
the year begins from תשרי.
Just we count the months from ניסן so as to commemorate יציאת מצרים,
but when we say ניסן is the first month,
it does not mean the first month of the year,
means the first month in the יציאת מצרים count.
משל למה הדבר דומה,
let's say a person gets engaged,
a person gets buys a new house,
gets a new car,
so often will say,
"Well,
now it is three months since I bought that געוואלדיקע car.
Now it's five months since I got engaged." But doesn't mean that the year
starts from that.
Okay.
So years always start from תשרי,
just after יציאת מצרים we count months from ניסן.
Okay,
פסוק י״א,
והנה עלה זית טרף בפיה.
Now,
did the מבול uproot the trees or not uproot the trees?
So on one hand,
if נח sends out the bird hoping for some sign,
and in fact there was a sign,
of the olive wreath which was brought by the or the branch of olive
that was brought by the יונה,
that would seem to imply that the trees were not uprooted.
On the other hand,
חז״ל say וימח את כל היקום,
that everything was dissolved and even the stones of the grind of the mill
were dissolved.
So if that's the case,
so where did this branch come from?
Where'd the branch come from?
So there's a מחלוקת.
According to one opinion from ארץ ישראל,
another opinion גן עדן,
which the רמב״ן says,
but how's that work?
Still,
why wasn't it dissolved?
So there's an opinion based on some פסוק in יחזקאל that the מבול didn't
fall on ארץ ישראל.
But hey,
grant that the מבול didn't fall on ארץ ישראל,
but presumably the waters would come into ארץ ישראל.
That was before we thought of the brilliant idea of a security fence,
which will stop everybody except for those people that want to pass over the
fence,
although did provide presumably lots of good money whoever the contract to build the
security fence,
presumably lots of Arabs.
But in any case,
so the so the water presumably would flow into ארץ ישראל.
So,
says the רמב״ן,
it would flow into ארץ ישראל,
but it wouldn't be as hot.
That wouldn't be already כלי ראשון,
right?
Or was would be sort of עירוי כלי ראשון.
It wouldn't be so hot,
and therefore perhaps the trees weren't dissolved.
Now,
parenthetically it's interesting that the רמב״ן when he deals with the question,
"Well,
granted the מבול didn't fall in ארץ ישראל,
but the waters would roll into ארץ ישראל," the רמב״ן could have given a
simple answer.
What simple answer could he have given?
You know,
רש״י writes על התורה that ארץ ישראל is גבוה מכל הארצות.
ארץ ישראל is higher than all the lands.
So higher than all the lands,
so the waters wouldn't come into ארץ ישראל.
So why doesn't the רמב״ן give that answer?
So it would seem I'm sorry?
Okay,
but if ארץ ישראל was higher,
so higher.
So it would seem so it would seem that the רמב״ן realizes or the
רמב״ן understood that when you say that ארץ ישראל is higher than other mountain
than the rest of the world,
it doesn't necessarily mean physically.
Doesn't necessarily mean physically.
It might mean that spiritually it's more important.
That's my guess.
Okay,
in any case,
there's an opinion that felt that's from גן עדן,
although and the The assumption is that the waters didn't enter גן עדן altogether,
but then the רמב"ן says,
so how did he know,
if the waters didn't enter גן עדן,
how did he know that the waters subsided?
I don't know why the רמב"ן doesn't answer that נח didn't know that it
comes from גן עדן.
לא ידע.
In any case,
Weren't גן and עדן two separate places?
I'm sorry?
Weren't גן and עדן two separate places?
מילא,
so that's...
Okay.
The רמב"ן in פסוק כ"א deals with the issue.
There's a very difficult פסוק that says ויאמר ה' אל לבו...
ויאמר ה' אל לבו on ח' כ"א:
וירח ה' את ריח הניחוח ויאמר ה' אל לבו לא אוסיף לקלל עוד את
האדמה בעבור האדם כי יצר לב האדם רע מנעוריו.
What's difficult about that פסוק?
That פסוק is coming to explain why הקדוש ברוך הוא won't bring another מבול.
That פסוק is remarkably similar to a פסוק that was said before the מבול.
Before the מבול it says that the reason why הקדוש ברוך הוא is going
to bring the מבול is in ו' ה':
וירא ה' כי רבה רעת האדם בארץ וכל יצר מחשבות לבו רק רע כל
היום.
So you have to figure out how could it be that the fact that
man has a strong יצר הרע,
on one hand,
is the reason for bringing the מבול,
and on the other hand is the reason for not bringing another מבול?
So different מפרשים,
they have different approaches as to how to deal with this issue.
The רמב"ן says something about the fact that over here the פסוק is emphasizing
מנעוריו,
that when a person originally born,
he has a יצר הרע,
but then if he works on it,
he could fix that up.
So,
hey,
you guys are at the stage when you're meant to start working on your
your,
נערים,
meant to start working on your,
on correcting that יצר הרע.
I won't say about myself I'm a lost cause,
but whatever.
That's,
okay.
Is this the פסוק that the Christians get it from,
the whole...
That you need to ask them.
I'm not an expert in Jewish theology,
and you can expect me to...
In any case,
ט' ה'.
So we have in the פרשה the שבע מצות בני נח,
and the תורה tells us,
ואך את דמכם לנפשתיכם אדרש מיד כל חיה אדרשנו ומיד האדם מיד איש אחיו
אדרש את נפש האדם.
So how are we to understand this phrase?
It says that a murderer is punished,
and even a person,
a person is not allowed to take his own life.
Unfortunately sometimes there are there are some people that take their own life because
of they're mentally deranged.
But that's one thing.
But sometimes you have people,
obviously it's an איסור,
but unfortunately some people,
they don't have,
in a certain sense,
בחירה חפשית.
You have some people that theologically they decide,
or I'm sorry,
philosophically they decide that life isn't worth the living,
or their team lost the World Series,
or they whatever,
because so sometimes people that are somewhat sane,
they take their own lives,
and that's considered to be a terrible sin.
So says the פסוק,
but then the פסוק adds:
מיד כל חיה אדרשנו.
So that פסוק sounds like it's saying that הקדוש ברוך הוא will punish—should we
shut off the AC?
You're okay?
You can move to the back if you'd like.
The פסוק sounds like הקדוש ברוך הוא will punish the animal.
Punish the animal?
But an animal doesn't have בחירה.
So רמב"ן has a number of approaches,
and we should get moving.
One approach,
that it's not a punishment for the animal,
it's just some sort of גזירת הכתוב.
He points out that that which you kill an animal is not a punishment,
by the way,
for the master of the animal.
How could you tell whether that which you kill an animal that kills is
meant as a punishment or not as a punishment?
Do you kill an animal of...
Okay,
maybe.
Of הפקר.
An animal of הפקר.
If there's an animal of הפקר that kills,
meant to kill that animal?
So that's a מחלוקת תנאים.
The רמב"ן assumes that yes,
like the תנא קמא,
that we פסקן that yes.
So if that's the case,
then clearly it's not meant as a punishment for the master.
So it's just some sort of גזירת הכתוב.
Alternatively,
when the פסוק says,
maybe take a look at the פסוק inside,
רבותי.
It'll be easier for you to follow this discussion.
ט' ה'.
ט' ה'.
page כ״ו,
at least in the חומש which I'm using,
פרק ט׳
פסוק ה׳.
So the פסוק says,
מיד כל חיה אדרשנו.
So the רמב״ן suggests an alternative,
when it says,
מיד כל חיה אדרשנו,
what it means is the following:
if somebody kills somebody else,
then he will be punished.
And how will God punish that murderer?
Often he will be punished by having some חיה go ahead and and kill
the murderer.
Alternatively,
מיד כל חיה אדרשנו is saying that הקדוש ברוך הוא places within nature that
he will not that animals generally speaking will not kill man.
You ever wonder,
you have these crows,
you have these cats,
if they would start up with you,
you know,
that would be a little bit If a cat would start up with you,
okay,
Steinberg is a big guy,
so,
but other people,
you know,
it could be pretty harmful,
whatever.
In any case,
so הקדוש ברוך הוא put in the nature that generally speaking the animals don't
start up with people.
Okay.
ואתם פרו ורבו,
points out the רמב״ן,
over here it is a מצוה.
Earlier it was just said as a ברכה.
And the פסוק adds שרצו בארץ,
and as the פסוק is somewhat ואתם פרו ורבו שרצו בארץ ורבו בה.
So what's that coming to say?
So either to try to populate the entire world,
or to be עוסק בכל היכולת with great effort.
I'm not sure what that means.
I don't know if that indicates that perhaps על פי פשט,
there's a מצוה of having more than two children.
As you know,
one fulfills the מצוה of פרו ורבו with just a boy,
if he has a boy and a girl,
it's considered to be a Jewish value to have more children.
The רמב״ן might indicate that to have more children is a branch,
is included in a certain sense in the מצוה of פרו ורבו.
Of course,
there are various factors that come into consideration with respect to,
you know,
how large a family,
that's certainly not our topic now.
Okay.
Skipping to זאת אות הברית.
So the תורה says,
זאת אות הברית.
What's the אות הברית?
What's the אות הברית,
רבותי?
The rainbow.
Now,
the רמב״ן deals with a couple of issues.
Number one,
why is the rainbow a an אות ברית?
So over here,
let's imagine this is a bow,
as in bow and arrow,
right?
Here's the bow just missing a string.
So the רמב״ן says that it was common practice,
let's say I'm a great warrior,
not a great worrier,
which I also happen to be,
but a great warrior with a W-A.
So when I want to show that I don't want to attack,
then then I would hold the bow like this rather than like this.
When I hold the bow like this,
that means that I'm ready to use the bow to fire arrows.
When I hold it like this,
then it's showing that I'm not going to fire arrows.
So similarly the קשת,
if you imagine a rainbow,
the rainbow is not shaped like that,
rather it's shaped like that,
you know,
as if to say that God is not going to fire more arrows at
the the world.
Also,
the רמב״ן points deals with the following interesting question.
He says that we learned in Earth science,
says the רמב״ן,
the יוונים,
they point out that the rainbow is a natural phenomenon.
Also sometimes in a cup of,
you know,
you have a glass of water and the water,
you know,
then also there you have a a rainbow.
So how could it be that it's a sign if So he says that
he doesn't think that's a קשיא.
The לשון הפסוק is קשתי נתתי בענן,
that the rainbow was always there,
but now הקדוש ברוך הוא is saying the rainbow has special significance that I
will not bring another מבול upon the world.
Okay.
In any case,
חז״ל do point out that there were certain generations when there was no rainbow
that was seen.
Why is that so?
In very righteous generations such as in the generation of רבי שמעון בר יוחאי
and חזקיהו,
the rainbow wasn't seen due to the righteousness.
Okay.
פסוק ט-יח.
Now we're at the story of חם.
Okay.
So,
נח The פסוק says that נח plants a vine,
drinks wine,
וירא חם אבי כנען את ערות אביו ויגד לשני אחיו בחוץ.
So the רמב״ן deals with וירא חם אבי כנען.
Why is it mentioned that he's אבי כנען?
That the רמב״ן will address.
Says the רמב״ן,
it's due to the fact that in the continuation of the פסוקים,
then נח,
who does he curse?
ארור כנען.
He doesn't curse חם,
he curses כנען.
Which is a bit strange,
because after all,
who is it that publicizes the disgrace of נח?
וירא חם אבי כנען ויגד לשני אחיו בחוץ.
One minute.
Okay.
Furthermore,
the רמב״ן addresses the following issue:
וייקץ נח מיינו ויידע את אשר עשה,
פסוק כ״ד.
וייקץ נח מיינו ויידע את אשר עשה לו,
את אשר עשה לו בנו הקטן.
That which was done to him by בנו הקטן.
What does בנו הקטן mean?
נח's youngest son?
That's how the רמב״ן assumes.
And who was נח's youngest son?
Perhaps חם,
the רמב״ן understands,
if I'm not mistaken.
Yes,
that's how the רמב״ן understands.
However,
the אבן עזרא understands,
in a פשט which רמב״ן doesn't like,
I don't know why not,
בנו הקטן means the youngest son of חם.
After all,
who are the sons of חם?
בני חם פוט,
פוט ומצרים,
כוש ומצרים ופוט וכנען.
So כנען,
the אבן עזרא understands,
was the youngest son of חם.
So את אשר עשה לו בנו הקטן,
that which was done to him,
after all,
previously it indicated that חם caused the disgrace and בנו הקטן means the youngest
son of חם,
referring to what כנען did to נח.
And the אבן עזרא says that's how we are to understand that which נח
curses כנען.
So what happened,
according to the אבן עזרא,
is that חם sees נח in in a revealed state,
חם tells the people on the outside,
then כנען comes and does something to to נח.
Okay,
there are other פשטים.
Now the,
but the רמב״ן doesn't accept that.
So take a look at the רמב״ן,
we're in פסוק י״ח on the third line.
I apologize,
we'll move quickly.
רבי אברהם אמר כי חם ראה והגיד לאחיו,
if anybody needs to go,
catch a bus,
whatever,
so,
רבי אברהם אמר כי חם ראה והגיד לאחיו וכנען עשה לו רעה לא גילה
אותה הכתוב וזה טעם אשר עשה לו בנו הקטן בנו of חם,
הקטן,
כי כנען הוא הקטן.
However,
says רמב״ן,
he doesn't think that's correct.
So according to רמב״ן,
the רמב״ן needs to deal with if,
in fact,
כנען didn't do anything to him,
so how are we to understand that which נח curses כנען?
Says רמב״ן,
he curses כנען because he wanted the curse on חם to be a גזונטע
curse,
meaning,
if you just curse חם,
then,
okay,
חם is cursed,
but not future generations,
because after all,
whichever children were born aren't necessarily going to be cursed.
So therefore he curses כנען,
who,
I think the רמב״ן says is the only son that he had at the
time,
the only son that חם had,
and No,
no,
no,
according to the רמב״ן he wasn't.
פוט,
מצרים,
כנען,
he's listed last because he was the lowliest.
So I think he says that he cursed כנען because I think he says
is the only son then,
am I correct?
One second,
please.
I think he says it was the youngest he was it was the eldest
son,
so he curses him,
and that way also the future generations would be cursed.
Okay.
A very important רמב״ן,
let's read inside.
פסוק,
the end of פסוק כ"ו on page ס"ז.
ונכתבה זאת הפרשה,
four lines before the end,
last word on line is הפרשה.
נכתבה זאת הפרשה להודיע כי בחטאו היה כנען עבד עולם וזכה אברהם בארצו ונכתב
ענין היין בנח כי יש בו אזהרה ממנו יותר מפרשת נזירות.
פרשת נזירות,
we're on page ס"ז.
פרשת נזירות tells us,
right before פרק י',
פרשת נזירות tells us that don't drink too much wine.
But here,
the Torah tells us the story of how much harm came about through יין.
כי הצדיק תמים אשר צדקתו הצילה כל העולם,
nevertheless,
כמה סרח בו היין והביאו לידי בזיון וקללת זרעו.
So a person that,
you know,
gets drunk could mess himself up big time and his children.
Okay,
skipping to גיבור ציד לפני ה'.
נמרוד,
צדיק or not צדיק?
אבן עזרא says,
well look at the פסוקים,
it says he was a גיבור ציד לפני ה',
sounds like he was a really cool guy,
hunt down animals,
bring them as a קרבן.
But the רמב"ן says that we know in tradition from חז"ל that he was
a terrible fellow.
He is the one that ruled over people with force and engaged in wars.
That's נמרוד.
Okay.
רמב"ן in the end of פסוק ט"ו points out that ארץ כנען was always
destined for the Jewish people,
was given to כנען as some sort of a caretaker.
אנשי דור הפלגה,
he says their sin is not written in the פסוקים,
it's some sort of has some kabbalistic explanation.
Okay,
he has a lengthy discussion about when,
where אברהם אבינו was born,
but that also he talks about in פרשת לך לך,
so we'll have an opportunity to discuss that.
Kind of also to review quickly some things which we've seen,
רמב"ן understands תולדות נח doesn't mean the story of נח,
rather the children of נח,
like רש"י.
The רמב"ן deliberates on why נח's children were saved,
either they were righteous as well or they were saved בזכות נח.
בדורותיו means that in all those generations he was uniquely he was the only
צדיק.
נחתם גזר דינם on the גזל because that's מפורסם,
that's רע לשמים ורע לבריות,
it's a מצוה מושכלת.
The רמב"ן says that the תיבה,
that which everything fit in,
was a נס,
and the reason why was somewhat of a large תיבה so that people would
come and see,
and then נח would teach them between right and wrong,
and perhaps that way they would do תשובה,
or it was somewhat large so as to have נח do his השתדלות to
minimize the נס.
The רמב"ן had a different explanation on why is it that the כשר animals
נח himself was meant to bring the seven,
seven.
The רמב"ן had a bit of a discussion about the fish.
רמב"ן tells us the months that the years certainly start from תשרי,
always did,
always will,
but the months after after יציאת מצרים are from ניסן.
He had a discussion about the מבול falling in ארץ ישראל,
where the olive branch came from.
מיד כל חיה אדרשנו,
what does it mean מיד כל חיה אדרשנו?
After all,
animals don't have בחירה חפשית.
So either it means some sort of גזירת הכתוב,
the animal is killed,
but not as a punishment,
or what it means is that הקדוש ברוך הוא,
if a person murders somebody else,
then הקדוש ברוך הוא will punish him often through some animal attacking the murderer,
or what the פסוק means that הקדוש ברוך הוא,
the nature that animals don't attack man,
generally speaking.
פרו ורבו over here is a מצוה,
earlier it was just said as a ברכה.
Discussed the nature of the מצוה of the קשת,
of the ברית of the קשת.
He tells us,
by the way,
that a ברית is some sort of deal that will be fulfilled regardless of
what happens in the future.
The רמב"ן has a מחלוקת with אבן עזרא how to understand את אשר עשה
לו בנו הקטן.
רמב"ן tells us the very important lesson from the story of נח's getting drunk,
amongst other things we learn,
how careful a person needs to be about getting drunk,
because after all,
נח was such a righteous man,
brought צרות on,
a בזיון on himself,
and קללה to his children as a result of the drinking wine.
Okay.
Some רמב"ןs on the פרשה.
אשריכם on,
as you know,
every מצוה is meaningful,
but especially a מצוה which comes through a little bit of צער.
So I hope it didn't involve a great amount of צער,
but certainly involved some amount of effort to be here,
and of course the difference,
you know,
what makes a person grow,
the פסוק says אף חכמתי עמדה לי,
a פסוק in אף חכמתי in קהלת,
thank you.
And חז"ל teach us that תורה שלמדתי באף,
the Torah which a person learns with,
not necessarily with anger,
but with with effort,
that's the Torah which stays with a person.
אשריכם.
Have a good שבת.