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 הפסוק says at the beginning of the פרשה that פינחס is given שכר
תחת אשר קנא לאלוקיו ויכפר על בני ישראל.
רמבן understands that these are two separate things,
so the רמבן הודיע הקדוש ברוך הוא למשה שישלם שכרו טוב לפינחס על קנאתו
שקנא לאלוקיו בין אדם למקום ועל הצדקה שעשה עם ישראל לכפר עליהם ולא מתו
כולם במגפה.
The רמבן after all pointed out the end of last week's פרשה that if
not for פינחס killing the sinners,
then זמרי and כזבי,
then many more people would have died.
ציווה שיודיע לישראל שהוא כהן לעולם.
And he was told to inform the Jewish people that therefore be a כהן
לעולם.
זאת לכם לכם אמור שיגיד זה בישראל.
Okay.
רמבן says in continuation והזכיר בשם האיש ישראל המוכה המוכה ובשם האישה המוכה להודיע
כי ראוי היה לשכר גדול הזה שהרג נשיא בישראל ובת מלך גויים ולא ירא
מהם.
The fact that somebody was a well-known,
the fact somebody was a celebrity,
that didn't stop him.
ובקנאתו לאלוקיו ואחרי שנתן שכרו הטוב לצדיק ציווה להיפרע מהרשעים ואמר צרורות מדינים וציווה
שימנה העם תחילה וכל העניין.
So although the actual war with מדין did not take place immediately,
but the ציווי is already given here.
Okay.
בנכליהם.
It says צרורות מדינים בנכליהם בנכליהם אשר ניכלו לכם על דבר פעור.
Says the רמבן כאשר פירשתי כי זקני מדין חשבו המחשבה הרעה הזאת.
How we have it against מדין because it was מדין's suggestion to have the
בנות מואב and to some extent מדין entice the Jewish people and get them
involved in זנות and עבודה זרה.
כי זקני מדין חשבו המחשבה הרעה הזאת כמו שנאמר ויאמר מואב אל זקני מדין
כי בהם נתייעצו תחילה והם נתנו עצה זו למואב שתזנינה בנותם עמהם ויצמידו אותם
לבעל פעור להדיחם מעל השם.
Although it's not something which is explicit that this עצה came from זקני מדין.
ועוד another indication that מדין was involved is the fact ששלחו מדין להם בת
מלכם.
מדין sent to מואב the daughter of the king כזבי בת צור לזנות עמהם
וזה הטעם על דבר כזבי בת נשיא מדין אחותם.
That indicates that her involvement was something that was instigated by מדין.
כי לולי מדעת יוצאי המלכות נעשה ובת מלך במדין מה תבקשי בשיטי בנות מואב.
If כזבי was involved in זנות,
it's presumed to the fact that the advisors of מדין suggested that she be
involved so as to cause the Jewish people to sin.
Now the רמבן says after a couple lines that it's probable וקרוב היה שהיה
גם בלעם בעצה הזו כי בשבתו מארץ מואב עבר במדין כדרכו משם כדרכו משם.
That's where he needed to pass by on the way to ארם והיה ביועצי
המלכות.
So he says that presumably בלעם was the one that gave this was involved
in this עצה as well.
And he says otherwise the Jewish people wouldn't have killed a person that was
מתנבא but once הקדוש ברוך הוא says that we're meant to punish those that
caused us to sin,
so בלעם is also in that category.
Okay,
now the רמבן addresses the following issue.
If we take a look over here at the order of the פסוקים,
so the Jewish people they first circle go around אדום,
then מואב.
And at the time when the Jewish people are coming close to מואב,
הקדוש ברוך הוא says אל תצר את מואב.
Don't get involved with מואב,
don't start up with it.
Okay.
Then the Jewish people circle עמון,
then they wage war against סיחון and עוג.
And then the פסוק says וירא בלק בן ציפור.
And after all that צרורות מדינים והכיתם.
Okay,
keeping this in mind,
the רמב"ן deals with the following question.
The גמרא says,
the גמרא asks,
why is it that הקדוש ברוך הוא needed to tell us not to wage
war with מואב?
After all,
presumably we wouldn't wage war without God's telling us to do so,
so why did the תורה need to tell us not to wage war against
מואב?
So the גמרא,
well,
משה רבינו,
if not for הקדוש ברוך הוא telling him not to wage war,
משה רבינו would have made the following קל וחומר:
if we're meant to punish מדין because of their עצה of זנות,
then certainly בנות מואב that were apparently more involved in the זנות,
certainly they should be punished.
Therefore הקדוש ברוך הוא needed to tell משה רבינו not to start up with
מואב,
because without הקדוש ברוך הוא saying that,
then we would have started up with מואב based on the קל וחומר,
קל וחומר based on which we're meant to attack מדין.
That's what חז"ל say,
but the רמב"ן points out the following difficulty:
the ציווי אל תצר את מואב was given before we were told צרורו את
המדינים.
That's the issue which רמב"ן deals with.
He also addresses the issue,
why is it that we're not meant to wage war with the מדינים?
And on that he gives a number of explanations.
Okay,
so let's take a look at the רמב"ן.
אם כן אזהרת אל תצר את מואב.
In this standard printing we're almost halfway down on page ש"ו,
first word in line is הענין הזה כולו.
אם כן אזהרת אל תצר את מואב מוקדמת למצות צרורו את המדינים.
ואני תמה על זה.
Does anybody have it in the new printing?
שפ"ט.
שפ"ט,
thank you.
אם כן אזהרת אל תצר את מואב מוקדמת למצות צרורו את המדינים ואני תמה
על לשון האגדה שאמרו בבבא קמא אל תצר את מואב וכי על דעתו של
משה רבינו לעשות מלחמה שלא ברשות אלא נשא משה קל וחומר בעצמו ואמרו מה
מדינים שלא באו אלא לסייע בהזנות למואב אמרו צרורו את המדינים והכיתם אותם מואבים
עצמם לא כל שכן אמר לו הקדוש ברוך הוא לא כשל על דעתך ששתי
פרידות יש לי להוציא מהם רות המואביה ונעמה העמונית.
Don't wage war against them because of רות and נעמה that were meant to
descend in the future from these nations.
והנה כל זה קל וחומר הזהירו למשה מן המואבים.
ועוד אם מפני הקל וחומר,
if the הוה אמינא to wage war is just based on קל וחומר,
then why was there a need for an אזהרה not to wage war against
עמון?
After all משה רבינו would not wage war without permission and עמון was not
involved in that,
קל וחומר is not relevant to עמון.
ואולי לא הקפיד לשון האגדה בכך.
In other words even though that אגדה sounds like the ציווי of אל תצר
את מואב was said after,
it doesn't necessarily mean that.
It means that הקדוש ברוך הוא told משה רבינו earlier אל תצר את מואב
because He realized that eventually משה רבינו would make a קל וחומר.
והכוונה לומר שגלוי לפניו יתברך כי כשייצא ויעשה צרורו את המדינים ילך משה קל
וחומר לעשות מלחמה במואב שלא ברשות אחרת and therefore הקדוש ברוך הוא preempted that
והקדים להזהירו מזה.
Okay.
And once He's here במואב,
ממילא also He's here בבני עמון,
that משה רבינו shouldn't think if הקדוש ברוך הוא says don't wage war with
מואב,
that would imply yes with בני עמון.
After all,
עמון לא קדמו אתכם בלחם ובמים.
Okay.
In any case,
so why is it that we're not meant to wage war?
True,
הקדוש ברוך הוא says don't wage war with מואב,
but why is that so?
So that גמרא in בבא קמא sounds like based on the fact that הקדוש
ברוך הוא wanted רות and נעמה העמונית to be born.
And they couldn't be born if their parents were already killed.
But he also cites other מדרשים:
מדרש אחר מפני שמואבים עשו מפני היראה ששלמו אותם מדינים נתעברו על ריב לא
להם.
That's...
as ירושה for לוט for בני לוט ששירת את הצדיק.
לוט served אברהם אבינו.
Interesting.
וגלה עמו לעשות הארץ.
Therefore הקדוש ברוך הוא didn't want us to take away from לוט.
On the other hand,
on the other hand,
because of their sin of על דבר אשר לא קדמו אתכם בלחם ובמים,
הקדוש ברוך הוא was מרחק them from the Jewish people.
So it's interesting,
apparently divine punishment is very precise.
On one hand,
we're not meant to take away their ירושה.
On the other hand,
they are,
we're told that we're not allowed to have them intermarry with the Jewish people.
Okay,
חנוך,
next פסוק כ״ו כ״ה,
חנוך משפחת החנוכי.
The רמב״ן,
and this is something which the רמב״ן states elsewhere and develops more in the
continuation,
the רמב״ן is of the opinion,
not like רש״י,
that every חלק,
every שבט got an equal portion.
Every שבט got an equal portion in ארץ ישראל.
And every בית אב slash משפחה in the שבט also got an equal portion.
אי,
but doesn't the פסוק say לרב תרבה ולמעט תמעיט?
That just means within each משפחה.
Within each משפחה,
לרב תרבה ולמעט תמעיט.
Okay,
so let's see a bit of this inside.
חנוך משפחת החנוכי.
Is there a window open,
or just a smell?
Whatever.
Okay.
ולא כאשר נתחלקה הארץ לשבטים על דעת רבותינו שנטל שבט שמעון המועט כשבט יהודה
המרובה חלק כחלק כך נתחלקה לבית אבות ליוצאי מצרים ועשו מנחלת ראובן ד׳
חלקים והיה חלק משפחת החנוכי כחלק משפחת הפלואי כחצרון וככרמי אף על פי שאינן
שוים במספר שמות גולגלותם.
After all,
one reason why פלוא was somewhat small is that דתן ואבירם,
they died,
right?
וזה טעם המנין הזה שמנו המשפחות ליוצאי מצרים ולא הזכיר לגולגלותם.
Even though it does mention the sum total,
but the emphasis here is on the משפחה.
מה שלרב תרבו ולמעט תמעיטו נחלה בבני המשפחה.
Okay.
He also suggests that the emphasis in יהושע it also emphasizes the משפחה.
That it means,
it could mean a number of things.
Among other possibilities the רמב״ן says that what that means is that every משפחה
got in the same location,
the same general area.
Okay.
פסוק י״ג.
The רמב״ן over here deals with the following with a number of issues including
the following.
Here in the פסוקים,
the תורה indicates that ארד ונעמן are sons of בלע.
בלע was a son of בנימין,
and the תורה indicates that ארד ונעמן were grandsons of בנימין or sons of
בלע.
Okay,
what's the problem with that?
Well the problem is that in ספר בראשית,
when the תורה speaks of those that came down to מצרים,
there it says that ארד ונעמן were sons of בנימין,
sons of בנימין.
So are ארד ונעמן sons of בלע or were they brothers of בלע?
That's the סתירה that the רמב״ן deals with.
So the רמב״ן has a number of ways of dealing with that.
One option is that there were different ארד ונעמןs.
There was two ארדs and two נעמןs.
That there were ארד ונעמן in ספר בראשית that were sons of בנימין,
but they died,
and בלע then had a couple of children that he named them after his
departed brothers.
He even raises the possibility that בלע was מייבם the wife of ארד,
was מייבם the wife of נעמן,
and gave the children that name.
Which is interesting,
because the גמרא emphasized the fact that when the פסוק says ויבם that the
child יקום על שם אחיו המת,
that does not mean that he has he's given the same name of the
מת.
The גמרא says that בכל התורה כולה אין מקרא יוצא מידי פשוטו except for
here.
But the רמב״ן seems to understand that although there's no obligation,
but It's not אסור to call the child the name of the departed brother.
So that is one approach.
That the two,
that the ארד נעמן in this week's פרשה were different ארד נעמן.
Alternatively,
the רמב"ן does raise the possibility that maybe there was just one ארד,
one נעמן,
and in fact,
ארד נעמן as recorded in this week's פרשה are children of בלה,
and that which refers to them in פרשת ויגש as children of בנימין,
then he invokes the principle of בני בנים הרי הם כבנים,
children of children are like children.
Okay,
another issue which רמב"ן deals with over here is the following.
What does it take to be a ראש משפחה?
After all,
certain individuals that are listed as a ראש משפחה.
So רש"י says the general rule is those people that came down to מצרים,
those people that entered מצרים,
they are ראש משפחה.
רש"י indicates there's an exception if a person has lots of descendants.
רמב"ן doesn't like that.
He says,
well hey,
everybody had lots of descendants.
But the רמב"ן says that what it takes to be ראש משפחה is either
one's coming down to מצרים or alternatively,
if one was greatly respected by the descendants and was a known as a
head of a clan,
then also he is referred to as a ראש משפחה even if he's not
מיורדי מצרים.
And he says that there was a custom in Arab countries,
a custom apparently picked up by the Jews in a certain sense,
that just like the name אבן עזרא and אבן שושן,
that the descendants would refer to themselves as descendants of that individual.
Okay,
the רמב"ן does suggest that this predates Islam,
that's something which perhaps already took place in מצרים,
that they did this to emphasize the importance of the family structure שלא יתערבו
בגויים.
Okay,
moving right along:
ושם בת אשר שרח.
So there's an extra word over here.
What should it have said?
ובת אשר שרח.
What does it say ושם בת אשר?
So first of all,
he mentions by the way רש"י that says that שרח בת אשר was still
alive,
famous מדרש that שרח בת אשר had great longevity.
She was the one that apparently informed יעקב אבינו that בנימין was,
that יוסף was still alive.
In any case,
so he then quotes the תרגום אונקלוס תרגם משום בת איתת אשר שרח,
i.e.
that שרח was not a daughter of אשר but rather a stepdaughter,
a stepdaughter of אשר.
Okay,
what drove חז"ל to say that?
So we'll see in a second.
The רמב"ן deals with the issue that in ספר בראשית,
the תורה refers to ימנה,
ישוה,
וישוי sons of אשר and says ושרח אחותם,
which sounds like שרח was ממש a daughter of אשר.
So he says not necessarily.
The רמב"ן suggests the following:
there was some fellow whose name we'll call איש,
who was married to a woman called אשה,
and Mr.
איש dies,
and Mrs.
אשה marries somebody called,
marries אשר.
So אשר had a wife.
Now this wife brought with her a child into the marriage whose name was
שרח.
And then אשר had the children ימנה,
ישוה,
וישוי.
And thus שרח is a half-sister of those sons of אשר and therefore is
referred to as אחותם.
In any case,
what's interesting,
the רמב"ן says that שרח is listed over here due to the fact,
according to the מדרש because of her longevity,
but על פי פשט due to the fact she inherited a חלק in ארץ
ישראל.
Where'd she get this חלק of ארץ ישראל from?
Not from him,
because after all אשר had sons.
Rather she got it from Mr.
איש.
Now on the bottom he has a discussion who this mysterious איש is.
לכאורה this איש was from a different שבט.
It's interesting that she got נחלה from some other שבט.
In any case,
so let's take a look at the רמב"ן.
ואונקלוס תירגם ושום בת איתת אשר סרח.
She was a stepdaughter of אשר וזה לומר כי היתה בת יורשת נחלתו ולכן
הזכירה הכתוב בכאן כאשר הזכיר בנות צלפחד להכנס בכלל לאלה תחלק הארץ.
But if she was the daughter of אשר עצמו,
she wouldn't have inherited because בנים זכרים היו לו.
But she was בת אשתו מאיש אחר.
לא היה לו בן.
That fellow Mr.
איש didn't have any sons,
he just had סרח.
והיתה נחלתו לבתו והיתה מסרח אחותם כי היתה אחות בניו אחות אבי אשר's children
from the mother.
Half-sister from the mother but not בתו.
Okay.
ולכך אמר,
so how's that explain why it says ושם בת אשר סרח?
So says the רמב"ן ולכן אמר ושם בת אשת...
ושם בת אשר סרח לא יאמר בת אשר לומר כי היתה שמה בת אשר.
She was referred to as בת אשר but she wasn't really בת אשר.
Okay.
לרב תרבה okay that we're skipping.
Long רמב"ן.
The רמב"ן in נ"ה points out that not only was גורל something that was
used to give the נחלה of every שבט,
but it was also used within the tribe,
within the tribe.
Okay.
פסוק נ"ט,
skipping to פסוק נ"ט.
The תורה says אשר ילדה אותה ללוי במצרים ושם אשת עמרם יוכבד בת לוי
אשר ילדה אותה ללוי במצרים.
So יוכבד was born in מצרים.
Okay,
so חז"ל say that יוכבד,
where exactly was she born?
She was born as they were entering מצרים.
Why do חז"ל say that?
Why does the מדרש say that?
It's to resolve a סתירה between 69 and the 70.
But the רמב"ן says על דרך הפשט that that's not what's going on.
על דרך הפשט,
that which the תורה says אשר ילדה אותה.
Again what do חז"ל say?
She was born as they entered מצרים or her pregnancy was before מצרים and
she was born in מצרים?
Does anybody remember?
תוספות רבנו החסיד.
The pregnancy was before but the birth was after.
Oh,
as they were entering.
וכי מצאו also?
Or I don't know,
whatever.
In any case,
so as they were entering מצרים.
In other words,
her לידה,
חז"ל point out that the לידה was in מצרים but the pregnancy was before
מצרים.
But על דרך הפשט says the רמב"ן,
that which it says אשר ילדה אותה ללוי במצרים,
the point is the following.
That all the other שבטים had their children,
the י"ב שבטים had their children before they went down to מצרים.
The only שבט that had a child in מצרים was לוי.
And then the רמב"ן goes on to explain why is it that הקדוש ברוך
הוא saw to it that this child יוכבד would be born later?
Because apparently somehow it was destined that יוכבד would be the mother of משה
רבנו and הקדוש ברוך הוא didn't want משה רבנו to be born too early.
הקדוש ברוך הוא wanted משה to be born at a time when he would
be able to be the leader of the Jewish people.
So הקדוש ברוך הוא calculated when the redemption is meant to take place and
on that basis he had יוכבד be born at a time when משה רבנו
wouldn't be too old to be the leader.
After all משה רבנו started his leadership at what age?
80.
So says the רמב"ן:
וטעם אשר ילדה אותה ללוי במצרים על דרך הפשט לפי שכל בני יעקב עם
בניהם ובנותיהם ירדו מצרים ואין בהם בבני יעקב מי שהוליד שם אחרי כן זולתי
לוי שהוליד עם הבנים שמחה כי איחר השם לידתה כדי להגיע הקץ כאשר פירשתי
כבר.
Okay.
רמב"ן פסוק ס"ד.
To be able to understand this רמב"ן you need to give a brief introduction.
The תורה in פסוקים ס"ג ס"ד ס"ה here in this long פרק,
פרק כ"ו,
the תורה tells us two things about those that were counted by משה and
אהרן.
The current census was not done by משה and אהרן.
אהרן was dead.
But the תורה tells us two things about the relationship...
between the census of משה and אהרן and the current census.
What does the תורה tell us?
Well,
it tells us,
number one,
there was nobody that was counted now that was also counted before.
Those that were counted now,
none of the people being counted now were counted before.
Okay,
the תורה also tells us that of the people that were counted before,
nobody was alive except for כלב and יהושע.
So none of the people that were counted before were counted now and also
the תורה tells us that nobody from that initial original count were alive except
for כלב and יהושע.
The clear implication is that כלב and יהושע were not counted,
in fact the תורה is telling us כלב and יהושע were not counted now.
Why were they not counted now?
If they're still alive,
why were they not counted?
Answer,
because they were too old.
How old were they?
They were over...
no,
what's the cut-off point?
Sixty.
They were over sixty.
This is the source for over sixty not being counted,
after all it's not explicit.
If you ask every child they say yeah,
they only counted people between twenty and sixty.
It doesn't say that anywhere,
although that's something which emerges from...
emerges from here.
So says רמב"ן,
פסוק ס"ד,
יהושע וכלב לא היו בפקודים האלה לפי שהיו מששים שנה ומעלה ואין המנין אלא
מבן עשרים ועד בן ששים שנה.
Am I correct that it doesn't say explicitly anywhere they counted from sixty?
I don't think it does.
It doesn't say that they counted...
it says from twenty up,
it doesn't say...
but it does say כל יוצא צבא בישראל.
Right,
so רמב"ן does point out כי הם עיקר ימי האיש כענין האמור בערכין ואז
הוא יוצא צבא בישראל ולא מששים ולמעלה כדברי רבותינו.
Okay.
והוא לא היה,
says רמב"ן,
בנות צלפחד emphasize that their father was not from עדת קרח.
לא היה בתוך העדה הנועדים על ה' בעדת קרח כי בחטאו מת ובנים לא
היו לו.
So why do they emphasize that it wasn't מעדת קרח?
רש"י says to play up the fact that לא החטיא אחרים.
לא החטיא אחרים,
which is interesting,
because after all,
at least according to an opinion in חז"ל,
צלפחד was from the...
was the מקושש,
if I'm not mistaken.
So it sounds like to be מחטיא אחרים is a more חמור עבירה than
מחלל שבת,
is that what it implies?
בכל אופן.
In any case,
so either שלא החטיא אחרים,
or על דעת רבותינו he says that עדת קרח didn't get a חלק in
ארץ ישראל.
Or על דרך הפשט he says that they played up it wasn't מעדת קרח
because they suspect that משה רבנו had it in against קרח for עדת קרח
claiming that משה רבנו was a...
was a crook,
that משה רבנו was a fake,
and everything משה רבנו did was his own volition without being sent by God.
Okay.
פסוק ט',
ואם אין לו בת ונתתם נחלתו לאחיו.
So תורה says if a person doesn't have sons,
then נחלה goes to the daughters.
If he doesn't have daughters,
then it goes to the brothers.
But says רמב"ן,
one second,
if a person does have sons or daughters then...
if he does have a father,
then it goes to the father.
So why does the תורה not list that which if a person dies and
doesn't have children then it goes to the father?
And...
or how do we know that a father is יורש and why does the
תורה not write that?
So רמב"ן has two options.
One option that's דבר פשוט,
because if the תורה says that when somebody dies it goes to the children,
ממילא if the children die it goes to the father.
And alternatively,
says רמב"ן,
that the תורה does tell us that if a person dies without children,
then the נחלה goes to the brothers.
So how in the world does it go to the brothers?
Why should it go to the brothers?
So רמב"ן raises the possibility that that which...
after all,
generally speaking the way ירושה works is that if you picture a family tree
or a plumbing system,
if you will,
so you have a stuffed pipe,
then what happens?
now everything goes up,
right?
All the water goes up and then it tries to fall down again and
nowhere to fall down then it...
so if you picture a family tree,
so that's the way ירושה works in a sense,
that ירושה goes down,
it doesn't have anywhere to go down,
then it will go up a node,
and doesn't and if there that person is dead then it'll fall down again.
And if there are no descendants then it'll pick up another node.
If he's not alive then it'll fall down again.
So how does ירושה make it to the brothers if X dies and doesn't
have any children?
So the תורה says it goes to the brothers.
So how's it get to the brothers?
says רמב"ן,
because in principle who is meant to be יורש?
The father.
The father was meant to יורש and there's no father then it will go
to the brothers.
So once the תורה says the brothers יורש,
then it implies that a father is יורש.
The תורה didn't want write that explicitly either because that's a דרך נחרצים not
a דרך ברכה,
or maybe in באי הארץ there's no such situation.
Okay.
עלי אל הר העברים פסוק י"ב.
The רמב"ן says that משה רבינו wasn't told to go up now,
but he was told that this would happen so that he shouldn't think that
once there are instructions given about ירושת הארץ that he's included in that.
The רמב"ן points out that הר העברים is another name for הר נבו.
Why?
Because it was that place that apparently is a comfortable place to be עובר
from עבר הירדן to ארץ כנען.
וצוית אותו פסוק י"ט.
משה רבינו is told with respect to יהושע וצוית אותו לעיניהם.
רש"י says tell יהושע that טרחנים הם סרבנים הם על מנת שתקבל עליך,
that realize that this position of leadership ain't going to be easy.
לשון רש"י.
The רמב"ן says this is incorrect because after all it says וצוית אותו לעיניהם.
So in front of the Jewish people to make an announcement that realize you're
going to be leader over these bratty people,
that is not something which would go over well,
it's not something that there's any reason to mention that in front of the
Jewish people.
So says the רמב"ן that he thinks וצוית אותו is to tell them what
his role is.
אבל וצוית אותו לעיניהם on the fourth line שיצונו במצוות הנהגת השופט.
What his role is,
כי בעבור היותו לראש יפקידם בידו ויזהירנו להשתדל מאד בענינם.
Take good care of these people,
משה רבינו is
meant to
tell יהושע.
Fight their...
fight the
wars of
God,
lead the Jewish
people,
be careful about
justice and
that certainly
is something
that should
be done
לעיניהם.
Okay.
כ"ח ב'.
צו את
בני ישראל
ואמרת אליהם את קרבני לחמי.
So why is this over here?
Says the רמב"ן to be משלים דיני הקרבנות because after all the מוספים and
the נסכים were only brought in ארץ ישראל not in the מדבר.
And therefore the תורה is משלים these דינים over here.
Okay.
To review some things which we've seen רבותי.
The רמב"ן says that what פנחס did was also a worthy act בין אדם
למקום בקנאו את קנאתי בתוכם and also good for the Jewish people,
it brought כפרה to the Jewish people.
Okay.
The רמב"ן points out that the עצה of sinning with בנות מואב was given
by מדין,
quite possibly given by בלעם.
מדין...
one indication that that's the case is the fact that כזבי בת נשיא מדין
was also involved in that and unless she was sent by the advisors why
would she be involved in that זנות?
Okay,
the רמב"ן addressed the difficulty with the גמרא in בבא קמא which sounds like
that which הצר was given אל תצר את מואב was based on the קל
וחומר that משה רבינו was planning on making from the צרור את המדינים.
The רמב"ן points out that the order of things is that אל תצר את
מואב was said before the צרור את המדינים and he says that לשון הגמרא
is apparently לאו דווקא.
In any case רמב"ן cites...
Every reason why we're not meant to wage war against מואב,
something that you would have expected in light of the fact that בנות מואב
caused us to sin.
Number one:
the descendants that are meant to emerge from מואב.
The רב סעדיה גאון points out a number of reasons why sometimes a wicked
person will not be punished and he says one of those reasons is that
that wicked person is meant to have eventually a righteous child,
which corresponds to what חז״ל say over here.
Alternatively,
מואב acted out of fear,
as opposed to מדין—there's no reason for them to get involved.
And the רמב״ן himself says על פי פשט that הקדוש ברוך הוא wanted the
descendants of לוט to get ירושה as שכר for that which לוט was משרת
אברהם אבינו.
Okay,
the רמב״ן tells us that every שבט and similarly every משפחה got an equal
portion,
but within the משפחה,
within each בית אב,
so לרב תרבה ולמעט תמעיט.
Okay,
the רמב״ן discussed how to resolve that which the תורה over here indicates that
ארד ונעמן are sons of בלע.
In בראשית,
the תורה indicates that they're brothers of בלע.
So either they're different ארד ונעמן,
or the ארד ונעמן in בראשית were not sons of בנימין—they were grandsons of
בנימין and in fact are brothers of בלע.
The רמב״ן indicates that a ראש משפחה is לאו דווקא those people that came
down to מצרים,
but even people later if they were considered to be important and their descendants
would refer to them as the head of the משפחה,
then they had the status of a ראש משפחה.
ושם בת אשר שרח—the רמב״ן tells us based or explains the תרגום אונקלוס that
she was a stepdaughter who got ירושה in ארץ ישראל.
The חלוקה על פי גורל was done not only for the ירושה of each
שבט,
but within each שבט as well.
אשר ילדה אתה ללוי במצרים—על פי פשט,
the תורה is coming to tell us that whereas the other direct children of
the שבטים were born in ארץ כנען,
it was דווקא יוכבד that was born in מצרים,
and הקדוש ברוך הוא delayed her birth,
so to speak,
so that משה רבנו would be born at the appropriate time.
יהושע and כלב,
although they still survived,
but they weren't in the current census due to the fact that the current
census,
the רמב״ן suggests,
was only those people that were up to age sixty.
Till age sixty,
apparently they're still appropriate for the צבא;
over age sixty,
apparently not.
Okay,
the תורה doesn't write explicitly that a father is נוחל,
either because it's obvious due to the fact that if a father is מנחיל,
במילא a father is נוחל from the son,
or it's something which you could figure out based on the fact that the
תורה tells us that a brother is נוחל the deceased,
and the ירושה of the brother comes through the father.
This is something which when you learn יש נוחלין is very relevant.
Okay,
וצויתה אתו—רש״י says וצויתה אתו that the Jewish people are טרחנים and סרבנים.
The רמב״ן feels that since the פסוק says וצויתה אתו לעיניהם,
presumably what he's meant to tell יהושע in their presence is the important role
that יהושע will have.
And the תורה picks up קרבנות over here because the דינים of מוספים and
נסכים are
only
applicable
in
ארץ
ישראל.
Okay,
these
are
some
רמב״ן
on
the
פרשה.