Taamei Mitzvos, part 3

So let's see the Ramban in Vayikra, Perek Yud-Chet, Pasuk Vav, the end of the Ramban.

והנה העריות מכל החוקים דברים שהן גזירת המלך והגזירה הוא הדבר העולה על דעת המלך שהוא החכם בהנהגת מלכותו והוא היודע הצורך והתועלת במצוה ההיא שיצווה בה ולא יגיד אותה לעם זולתי לחכמי יועציו.

So that seems, if not identical, it seems very much along the same wavelength as what we saw yesterday in terms of the Rambam's definition of chukim, that mishpatim is ta'am galui, ta'am yadua, as opposed to chukim which is ein ta'am galui, ein ta'am yadua. Again, in a little bit later in Vayikra, Perek Yud-Tet, Pasuk Yud-Tet, Yud-Tet, Yud-Tet in Vayikra. Es chukosai tishmoru, ve'elu hen:

בהמתך לא תרביע כלאים. אלו חוקים אלו גזירת המלך שאין טעם לדבר,

so says Rashi.

ולא הזכירו רבותינו שיהיה הטעם נעלם ושיהיו יצר הרע ועובדי גילולים משיבים עליהם אלא בלבישת שעטנז לא בכלאי הבהמה.

Meaning this pasuk,

את חוקותי תשמרו בהמתך לא תרביע כלאים שדך לא תזרע כלאים ובגד כלאים שעטנז לא יעלה עליך.

So this pasuk lists three types of kilayim. There's the kilay be'hema, not to cross-mate animals, then there's kilay hasadeh, שדך לא תזרע כלאים, not to plant two different minim together, and then there's kilay begadim, not to wear tzemer upishtim yachdav. So Rashi says es chukosai tishmoru, colon, introduces all the types of kilayim. The Ramban's being masig on that and the Ramban says no, the Ramban says that when Chazal, the way Chazal understand the pasuk, es chukosai tishmoru, that it refers to the only chok in this pasuk is kilay begadim, is levishas shatnez. That's one point of dispute with Rashi. The other point of dispute with Rashi is that Rashi in a few places sounds like that chukim have no reason at all, not just that the reason is unknown to us, but that they have no reason. And the Ramban is masig on that also.

ואין הכוונה בהם שתהיה גזירת מלך מלכי המלכים בשום מקום בלא טעם כי כל אמרת אלוה צרופה.

How can it be? If there's no ta'am then, I mean, obviously you have to understand Rashi, but in terms of what the hasaga on Rashi is, I don't know, if there's no ta'am so what does it mean, it's arbitrary? How can that be? It can't be, Hakadosh Baruch Hu doesn't do things arbitrarily.

כי כל אמרת אלוה צרופה, רק החוקים הם גזירות המלך אשר יחקוק במלכותו בלי שיגלה תועלתם לעם.

And the am is not nehneh by them because they don't... don't understand, they don't appreciate the value, so therefore they're not nehenim bahem.

אבל מהרהרים אחריהם בלבם ומקבלים אותם ליראת המלכות. וכן חוקי הקדוש ברוך הוא הם הסודות אשר בתורה שאין העם במחשבתם נהנים בהם כמשפטים אבל כולם בטעם נכון ותועלת שלמה.

We are here too, it seems like very much on the Rambam's wavelength in terms of the what the distinction is between chukim and mishpatim. Take a look at Binat Haparashah, sorry, take a look at Binah in Parshas Chukas. And this is actually the second of the two but we'll- this is the shorter one and then we'll go back to the other. So in

במדבר פרק יט פסוק ב. זאת חוקת התורה לפי שהשטן ואומות העולם מונים את ישראל מה המצוה הזאת ומה טעם יש בה.

What's monin es Yisrael? משיבים בלשון הונאת דברים, they tease us, they say hurtful things in terms of our commitment.

למה מה המצוה הזאת? לפיכך כתב בה חוקה גזירה היא מלפני ואין לך רשות להרהר אחריה. לשון רש"י מדברי רבותינו. וכבר כתבתי בענין שעיר המשתלח מה טעם לאומות שיהיו מונים אותנו בזאת יותר משאר הקרבנות שיכפרו. ויש מהם שיתהרו ככוונת הזב והיולדת.

If a person does something which is dan kares and he does it beshogeg, so he brings a chatas. So a chatas is a mechaper, it's got nothing to do with taharah. If he did melachah beshogeg on Shabbos, he didn't become tamei. The role of the korban has nothing to do with taharah, it's purely for kaparah. But then there are arba'ah mechussarei kaparah where their taharah is not complete until they bring a korban. A zav, zavah, a metzora, and a yoledes. So there, their taharah is not complete. They can't go into Mikdash, they can't eat kodshim until they bring a korban. So some korbanos are mitaher. So the Ramban says if you look in Chazal, in the Gemara in Yoma, when the Gemara in Yoma gives examples of chukim it mentions Sa'ir Hamishtaleach, chazir, the- in... So the Rambam understands that these are examples of korbanos. And the Ramban writes befeirush that all korbanos are mikh'lal hachukkim. And the Ramban is taking issue with that and says no, it's not p'shat that all korbanos are mikh'lal hachukkim. Davka Se'ir HaMishtaleiach and Parah Adumah are mikh'lal hachukkim.

וכבר כתבתי בעניין שעיר המשתלח והטעם לאומות שיהיו מונים אותנו בזאת יוסף משאר הקרבנות שיחפה ויש בהם שיטהר כקרבנות הזב והיולדת כי מפני היותה נעשית בחוץ ייראה להם שהיא נזבחת לשעירים על פני השדה.

So the Ramban says davka Se'ir HaMishtaleiach which is mentioned there in the Baraisa in Yoma and Parah Adumah are chukkim. And here that's what elicits the response which is characteristic towards chukkim from the Satan and Umos HaOlam that they scoff and they ridicule. So the Ramban would say and it's it's self-evident why ich veis why a yoledes bringing a korban is metaher that's self-evident and why the yoledes needs a korban for tahara more than someone who's tamei meis someone who's tamei meis doesn't have to bring any korban. See here the Ramban has a different definition of chukkim apparently. Here the Ramban says that what defines or characterizes the chok is that it appears to us as being internally inconsistent. So what's the chok quality of Se'ir HaMishtaleiach is not simply that we don't understand what it's about it seems to be shechutei chutz. The Se'ir HaMishtaleiach is I don't know we're misyaches to it as a korban. And Parah Adumah is chatas karachamana. Chatas karachamana. We also seem in some sense to be misyaches to it as a korban yet the whole thing is na'aseis bachutz. So how can that be given the Torah is so adamantly opposed to shechutei chutz how do you have Se'ir HaMishtaleiach how do you have Parah Adumah? And if you look at it most of the examples there in Yoma takeh do follow this pattern. When it says levisha she when it says shatnez. Levishas shatnez again the Ramban is medayek again says levishas shatnez it's davka kilei begadim which is which is an example of a chok not the other forms of kilayim davka kilei begadim. So levishas shatnez what characterizes shatnez is shatnez is heter beheter. You're allowed to wear tzemer you're allowed to wear pishtan. So in terms of the issur content of tzemer is zero the issur content of pishtan is zero so zero plus zero should equal zero and then all of a sudden tzemer upishtan yachdav is assur. So that also seems to be internally inconsistent. How can it be that when you combine שני דברים של היתר that that the result is issur. Why does it say achilas chazir as opposed to as opposed to kol ma'acholos asuros. Again because a chazir has one siman tahara and the other one doesn't have. So it also seems to be something which is internally cryptic not stam I know so korbanos so korbanos is not a chok because the Torah says this is an instrument of kappara okay the fact that that's not intuitive to us but the Torah clearly tells us it's an instrument of kappara okay fine. It's an instrument of taharah. Fine, there's no chok quality to that. But when you have something which is seemingly, obviously it isn't really, internally inconsistent, obviously. But when you have something which is seemingly internally inconsistent, that's the chok quality. And again, as the Ramban gives the cross-reference, he said this earlier in Acharei Mos by Sa'ir HaMishtaleach as well. So how do you how do you integrate how do you integrate this Ramban here in Chukas, the Ramban again, the one that we didn't look at together that he cross-references in the end of Avodas Yom HaKippurim by Sa'ir HaMishtaleach with the other Rambans where he seems to be on the same wavelength as the Rambam? So יתכן דברי תורה עניים במקום אחד ועשירים במקום אחר that when the Ramban says that ein ta'amam galui, so if that would be the only thing we had, so presumably we would have appropriately said that he is on the same wavelength as the Rambam. But maybe in light of these other Rambans, that's what he meant there also. Ein ta'amam galui in the sense that that we can that ein ta'amam galui means we understand internally. This is the Torah system. We understand that what the Torah's what the Torah's system is. Here, even internally we're stymied, we're perplexed. How does how does Sa'ir HaMishtaleach, how does that make sense internally given given what the Torah says? How does it isn't it how do you have that hetter and hetter all of a sudden creates creates creates issur? So יתכן שילמד סתום מן המפורש so that's what the Ramban meant before also. And and before again, aliba d'emes, he's not saying on the same wavelength of the Rambam and it's a very fundamental difference that ayen alav if but that that's one approach. Yeah, okay, we'll we'll stop there.