The Point of Challenges. The Impact of Intentions.

Let's see the Ramban here in the beginning of Perek Chaf-Beis and והאלקים נסה את אברהם back in Parshas Vayeira.

פרק כב פסוק א. והאלקים נסה את אברהם ענין הניסיון הוא לדעתי בעבור היות מעשה האדם ברשות מוחלטת בידו אם ירצה יעשה ואם לא ירצה לא יעשה יקרא ניסיון מצד המנוסה.

Aval hamenaseh yisbarach meaning in the human realm so when you have a nisayon so the menaseh wants to ascertain something about the menuseh. So it's not only that the menuseh is being tested it's that the menaseh is probing the menaseh is looking to uncover information. But with Hakadosh Baruch Hu so the nisayon it's a nisayon it's a trial in the sense of the outcome being unclear it's only mitzad hamenuseh.

אבל המנסה יתברך יצוה בו להוציא הדבר מן הכוח אל הפועל.

And Hakadosh Baruch Hu's intention is that the menuseh should actualize his potential.

להוציא הדבר מן הכוח אל הפועל. להיות לו שכר מעשה טוב ולא שכר לב טוב בלבד.

So at first glance the Ramban here is aligning himself with one of two approaches in the Midrash. Again the question of what's the pshat what does the Torah mean when it ascribes when it describes Hakadosh Baruch Hu as being menaseh when Hakadosh Baruch Hu knows how the person would Hakadosh Baruch Hu doesn't have to give a test to see what the results of the test would be. So what does it mean? So the Midrash gives an example that if you have pishtan if you have flax you have linen so the way part of the process the way you process it is by beating the you have to beat the stalk. You have to beat the flax in order to develop it. Let's say if you have a rug or something so sometimes to if you want get all the dust out of the rug so you beat the rug. Which again at first glance seems to be the same as the Ramban that the point of the nisayon is להוציא מן הכוח אל הפועל. But it could be that I mean the Ramban doesn't quote the Midrash which is conspicuous that he doesn't quote the Midrash so it could be that even within this approach of להוציא מן הכוח אל הפועל it can be understood in two very the follow through can be either of two very different things. The Ramban is talking about that it's leharbos secharo that by actualizing the potential meaning Avraham Avinu before the akeida had this level of אהבת השם ויראת השם that would allow him. but that was a potential, and by actualizing that potential, so then Avraham Avinu will receive schar not just for the lev tov but for the ma'aseh tov. That within Hakadosh Baruch Hu's system of schar ve'onesh, there's greater schar for ma'aseh tov than there is for lev tov. The other way to follow through, and lichora this is what's mashma in the Midrash and, and yet, this is why the Ramban doesn't cite the Midrash, is that a person can have potential but unless challenged, that potential doesn't get developed. Meaning it's not the p'shat that al yedei nisayon what's sort of hidden internally balev now becomes manifest externally bema'aseh without any change in the person. No, the p'shat of להוציא מן הכח אל הפועל is that when a person is put into a situation where he needs to respond, so then he grows in response to that challenge. And the point of the nisayon is not just to sort of increase the schar, but even Avraham Avinu as indescribably great as he was became even greater because he was challenged than he would have otherwise become. And that's what the mashal in the Midrash seems to point to. Again mashalim do say what the Ramban is saying, that nisayon is מוציא מן הכח אל הפועל, but the nisayon of the pishtani hazeh that he's makeh bepishtano also means that if he's not makeh bepishtano, so then the plant, the pishtan plant, you never fully capitalize on the potential of the pishtan plant. And what the Ramban is saying is not that de'ah in the Midrash. Again there's a certain similarity, but it's really fundamentally different because for the Midrash the nisayon is needed not just for ribuy schar but is needed for the menuseh to achieve that madreiga which he ultimately does. I don't know, we see that all the time. Let's say you have a child is growing up and the child has potential to be ba'al achrayus, but often what's needed for that to happen is to give him achrayus, is to put him in a position where he is responsible, where you give him achrayus for himself or for whatever. And then in response to that challenge, so then inach nami, if the potential's not there, the potential's not there. But often it's the case that the potential is there, but the person needs to be challenged in order to develop and certainly to fully develop that potential. I don't know, maybe the Ramban thinks that... I don't know that the Ramban would disagree with the truth of that idea, but maybe thinks that Avraham Avinu was already in such a high madreiga that that's not... but he says this is the p'shat in every nisayon. It's not just by Avraham Avinu, right, he's saying this is the p'shat in every nisayon. But ayin alav that it's not the same as that de'ah in the Midrash in terms of what the point of the nisayon is. It's the same in terms of that the nisayon is מוציא מן הכח אל הפועל, but in terms of what the nisayon is designed to do, it's very, very... the two are very, very distinct. The other pshat that the Midrash has is that nisayon is lashon כנשא נס על ההרים. That a nes is a banner. And nisayon means to raise a banner. And that the reason Hakadosh Baruch Hu gives a nisayon is to make known to others, to make known to the world, so the world will have this example to inspire them, to be mechazek them. I think that's the havana that the Rambam goes with in what the pshat in nisayon is. That's what the Ramban later if you take a look in pasuk yud-beis, again, leshitoso here in pasuk aleph. If you take a look at the Ramban on ki ata yadati. What do we mean by ki ata yadati? Again, Hakadosh Baruch Hu knows the future. Again, there wasn't any doubt or uncertainty that was dispelled by the Akeida. So the Ramban says:

מתחילה הייתה יראתו בכח לא יצא לפועל במעשה הגדול הזה ועתה נודע במעשה והיה זכותו שלם ותהי משכורתו שלמה מעם השם אלוקי ישראל.

I mean, kivyachol, Hakadosh Baruch Hu saying now I know it as something which is b'foal, right? I know it as something which was not only inherent within you be'koach as a potential, but now I know it as something which has been actualized. And then the Ramban is again just sort of reinforcing, reiterating what he said earlier, that תהי משכורתו שלמה מעם השם אלוקי ישראל. The again it's not an implication, the statement in the Ramban that even for the leiv tov there would be schar in some ways is the other side of the coin of what the Ramban has earlier in Parshas Lech Lecha. In perek tes-vov, pasuk yud-dalet on וגם את הגוי אשר יעבודו דן אנכי. So the Ramban deals with the question, the Rambam deals with it in Hilchos Teshuva as well, the Ravad, others, of why the Mitzrayim were held to account given that Hakadosh Baruch Hu was gozer that va'avadum v'inu osam. So the Ramban actually has two approaches to this general question. The second of the two is the following. He says even if Hakadosh Baruch Hu is gozer something, let's say a person would be aware that Hakadosh Baruch Hu was gozer that a certain individual should be killed. So the Ramban says if he then goes ahead and kills the person because he knows that it's a gezeira min hashamayim and he wants to be the shaliach, he wants to be the instrument for carrying out the gezeira min hashamayim, so the Ramban says he's doing a gevaldige mitzvah. What happens if no, that's not his kavana? His kavana is he hates this guy. But now he figures I'll be successful in what I want to do, I'm not going to be stopped because there's a gezeira against him, so he's doing it leroa levavo and leson'aso, so then the Ramban says he's liable. Agam that it was nigzar and agam that because it was nigzar, his action is not really causing the person's death because that's... It's gonna happen regardless. If he won't do it, it's gonna happen, it's gonna happen regardless. So basically what he's, the, the bechira in in what he's doing is in the is again, it's not entirely the same as over here because but the bechira is in is primarily in what the in on the level of the lev. It's not entirely parallel to here. That's what the Ramban says: Ka'asher taitzei hagezeira, again, the Ramban on Lech Lecha

על פי נביא יש בעושה אותה דינים כי אם שמע אותה ורצה לעשות רצון בוראו כנגזר

ein alav cheit אבל יש לו זכות בה. אבל אם שמע המצווה veharag oso lesina, skipping a few words, yeish alav onesh ki l'cheit niskavein. The Ramban says that Sancheirev knew of the nevuah of what he was supposed to do, but since he did it leroa levavo, על כן נענש בסוף. Vehinei Nevuchadnezzar shama

כי הנביאים פה אחד קוראים אותו להחריב ירושלים ואף בית המקדש עצמו אמר ונתתי את הבית הזה כשילה והם יודעים כי מצוות השם היא ואף על פי כן נענשו

Vehinei zeh, again I'm jumping around, that והנה זה כעונשו של סנחריב. So here too, the cheit is in the so just as the Ramban says that there is an element of sachar for tuv levav, again, not as great as there is for tuv hama'aseh, which is why the nisayon comes, but even for the tuv levav there would be sachar the Ramban says, right? Hakadosh Baruch Hu wanted leharbos sachar, but there would have been sachar just mitzad the

להיות לו שכר מעשה טוב לא שכר לב טוב בלבד

but there is sachar for lev tov. So that is the other side of the coin that the Ramban says that even when there's a gezeira that the person has to do it, but if he's doing it leroa levavo, so then there's onesh for the roa halev. And again, and that's even when the person is even when the rasha is aware of the gezeira, even when the rasha is aware of the gezeira.