Ramban Al haTorah

Let's take a look in the Ramban in the end of Parshas Bo Pereg Yud Gimmel Posuk Ches. Pereg Yud Gimmel Posuk Ches. Shemos Pereg Yud Gimmel Posuk Ches. So the Ramban's commenting on the Posuk of

והגדת לבנך ביום ההוא לאמר בעבור זה עשה ה' לי בצאתי ממצרים. בעבור זה שעשה ה' לי בצאתי ממצרים

V'chen והודעת להם את הדרך ילכו בה V'rabim Kein. So the Meforshei Ramban elaborate. I mean the Ramban indicates pretty clearly. The Ramban wrote very very compactly, very Bekitzur. But here he does give more of an indication. He says that Derech Hamikra-os sometimes that the Shin which is a Shin is assumed but not actually put in the Posuk. So the way the Posuk should be understood is בעבור זה שעשה לי ה' בצאתי ממצרים. And that's what the Ramban is saying. So too the Posuk when Yisro says to Moshe Rabbeinu והודעת להם את הדרך, the Posuk could only mean את הדרך שילכו בה, right? You'll inform them, you'll teach them the Derech that they should follow. So the Shin is understood. And the Ramban says that that's a common place in Lashon Mikra. So too the Posuk should be understood בעבור זה שעשה ה' לי בצאתי ממצרים. Lomar, so then what does the Posuk mean? What is the father telling the son in terms of the Sippur Yetzias Mitzrayim?

בעבור זה שעשה ה' לי בצאתי ממצרים, אני עובד את העבודה הזאת.

Because of this, the Ramban will explain shortly what the this is. Because of this, which Hashem performed on my behalf when I left Mitzrayim, that's why I'm being עובד את העבודה הזאת. K'inyan She-amar Lemata על כן אני זובח לה' כל פטר רחם. V'amar Zeh. What does the Zeh refer to and why is it expressed Bilashon Zeh?

כלומר תגיד לו מה שאתה רואה בעיניך ומה שאתה ראית

Biturei Ra-isa. Klomar Tagid Lo זה שאתה ראית בעיניך שעשה ה' לך בצאתך ממצרים. Right? So Zeh, this, means that you're specifying something, right? You know, here take this Sefer, right? So it's Munach L'fanecha. Right? Like Chazal darshen on Zeh Keli V'anveihu that K'vayachol that ראתה שפחה על הים, that the K'vayachol they saw Hakadosh Baruch Hu and were pointing at Hakadosh Baruch Hu. That's what the Mashma-us of Zeh is. So here too the Torah references the miracles of Mitzrayim Bilashon Zeh because the Mitzvah is to tell the son what you yourself witnessed. בעבור זה שאתה ראית. Ba-avur Zeh, I mean the speaking to the Dor who are going to leave Mitzrayim. So you'll tell them Ba-avur Zeh for this which Which you witnessed with your eyes, that's the background to mitzvas ta'avodah hazos. That's how the Ramban taitches. The Rambam writes in Perek Zayin of Chametz U'Matzah, Halacha Aleph:

מצות עשה של תורה לספר בניסים ונפלאות שנעשו לאבותינו במצרים בליל חמישה עשר בניסן שנאמר זכור את היום הזה אשר יצאתם ממצרים.

So for the Rambam, when when we, I mean following Chazal, speak of Sippur Yetzias Mitzrayim, so it's it's as it were חסורי מחסרא והכי קתני, it means סיפור נסי יציאת מצרים. It's not it's not to narrate a story of of an exodus just we we were slaves in Mitzrayim and then we left Mitzrayim. It's the saper benissim veniflaos. It's it's the nissei veniflaos which which one is supposed to be mesaper. Where did the Ramban get that hagdarah from? So in Parshas Va'eschanan l'chora it's meforash, right? In the this is the fourth of the כנגד ארבעה בנים דיברה תורה in terms of where they appear in the Chumash. כי ישאלך בנך מחר לאמר in Va'eschanan

פרק ו פסוק כ: כי ישאלך בנך מחר לאמר מה העדות והחוקים והמשפטים אשר צוה ה' אלהינו אתכם. ואמרת לבנך עבדים היינו לפרעה במצרים ויוציאנו ה' ממצרים ביד חזקה ויתן ה' אותות ומופתים גדולים ורעים במצרים בפרעה ובכל ביתו לעינינו.

So the answer to the ben chacham is you tell him about the osos umofsim. So it's the pasuk is meforash like the Rambam says. Yad chazakah l'chora also implies nissei veniflaos. So the way the Ramban learns pshat in ba'avur zeh l'chora aligns the pasuk in of vehigadta levincha with the pasuk here in the psukim here in Va'eschanan in terms of the focus being on the nissim, because the ba'avur zeh, the zeh refers to the nissim which you which you experienced. Vehigadta levincha, excuse me, והגדת לבנך ביום ההוא לאמר בעבור זה because of the nissim that you experienced she'asa Hashem that Hashem performed beyetzias Mitzrayim, that's what this is all about, that's what the whole seder is about. So it aligns in terms of again that focus on on the nissei veniflaos. Now the Ramban's teitch and I don't know here the next is shelo b'iyun hara'uy. That doesn't mean this wasn't b'iyun hara'uy, it just means that the next is in fact shelo b'iyun hara'uy. I'm not to make the wrong diyuk, rabboisai. Now now the Ramban is very consciously obviously the... the way he's teitshing the pasuk. So Rashi comments on the pasuk above was this, so Rashi says בעבור שאקיים מצותיו כגון פסח מצה ומרור הללו. So for Rashi the word Ba'avur means for the sake of, right? And therefore it has a future connotation. If you're doing for the sake of something, it means to achieve a certain result. So Ba'avur is for the sake of, and for the Ramban, Ba'avur is because of, and because of that it has a past connotation. But presumably the Ramban doesn't mean that Ba'avur always or exclusively means because of. So let's say for instance you have back in Sefer Bereishis in Parshas Vayeira.

ויאמר אבימלך אל אברהם מה הנה שבע כבשות האלה אשר הצבת לבדנה. פרק כ"א פסוקים כ"ט ולמד. ויאמר כי את שבע כבשות תקח מידי בעבור תהיה לי לעדה כי חפרתי את הבאר הזאת.

So Avraham Avinu says to Avimelech, you should take these seven sheep בעבור תהיה לי לעדה. So here Ba'avur certainly is future-oriented, right? It's not because of, it means for the sake of. So that will serve as, that will be that your way of acknowledging. I'm presenting these sheva kevashos as representing my ownership by virtue of the fact that I dug the be'er. So Ba'avur certainly means for the sake of. It's similar to Rashi's teitsh of Ba'avur here in Parshas Bo. So I don't know, so maybe the pshat is that according to the Ramban it goes both ways, that Ba'avur can mean because of le-she'avar or it can mean for the sake of in the future, and it's not that it's a kasha. It's not an either-or proposition. Seems like Onkelos uses bedil in Aramaic the same way to have both meanings, because here in Vayeira, Onkelos says בעבור תהיה לי לעדה בדיל דתהי לי לסהדו. And then in the next pasuk in Parshas Bo, the one after ve-higadta le-vincha,

והיה לך לאות על ידך ולזכרון בין עיניך למען תהיה תורת ה' בפיך.

So lema'an clearly means in order that. Again, it means future, right? In order that, that by doing this, by having the tefillin לאות על ידך ולזכרון בין עיניך, it will achieve. So Onkelos says bedil also. Okay, so the same way that Onkelos's bedil in Aramaic can have both mashmauyos, so mista'ama that's what you have to say according to the Ramban on Ba'avur. What does it mean here in

אם נא אחתי את למען ייטב לי בעבורך וחיתה נפשי בגללך?

That's what Avraham Avinu says right before Sheini. And then the second pasuk after Sheini, the third pasuk after Sheini: ul'Avram heiteiv ba'avura. So it could be he's going to Rashi in both meanings also. And the machlokes Rashi and the Ramban here is not how to, is not based on the semantics of the word ba'avur. It's independent of that. And here also, ul'Avram heiteiv ba'avura sounds like on account of Sarah, because of her yiches, that he's her brother. V'raboseinu darshu that a different pshat in zeh. Zeh doesn't refer to the miracles you experienced, but רבותינו דרשו כי על מצה ומרור שמונחים לפניך ירמוז. V'yitachen sheyeish shiura that according to Chazal, the way you teitch the pasuk והגדת לבנך בעבור זה עשה ה' לי בצאתי ממצרים. Klomar

כך וכך עשה ה' לי, כי מלת בעבור תשמש גם בעצם ענין, כמו בעבור הילד חי צמתי ואבך.

Eino b'glal. So the Ramban says that ba'avur can also mean again, a third meaning: neither for the sake of, nor because, not a causal range of meaning, but kach v'chach. So we'll come back to this then. But the Ibn Ezra says,

בעבור זה שאני עושה ועובד לפניו אכילת הפסח והמצה עשה השם לי אותות עד שהוציאני ממצרים

which seems to be along the lines of Rashi, no? Ba'avur Zeh, for this, for the sake of this.

כי בעבור זה שאני עושה ועובד לפניו אכילת הפסח והמצה עשה השם לי אותות עד שהוציאני ממצרים.

So why does he quote it from the Ibn Ezra, not from Rashi if that's what it means? I don't know. It doesn't seem to be the same as what Rashi said. I don't know. Tzaruch Iyun why he identifies it with the Ibn Ezra. Okay, we'll stop here for now.