Ramban Hakdama to Shemos

Maybe we'll see the Ramban's hakdama to Sefer Shemos. Ramban's hakdama to Sefer Shemos.

יש טעם הכתוב ספר בראשית שהוא ספר היצירה בחידוש העולם ויצירת כל נוצר ובספר האבות כולם שהם כעניין יצירה לזרעם מפני שכל מקריהם ציורי דברים לרמוז להודיע כל העתיד לבוא להם.

The premise of the Ramban's hakdamos, the same he operated with this premise in Sefer Bereishis as well, is that there is a thematic unity to the Chamisha Chumshei Torah. It's not just it's too big, it's too unwieldy to have this be one Chumash, let's break it down to Chamisha Chumshei. No, there's a thematic unity to each of the Chumshei. Sefer Bereishis is Sefer Hayetzira. How is it Sefer Hayetzira beyond the opening of Parshas Bereishis where the Torah tells us about Maaseh Bereishis about the briya? The Ramban says because the story of the Avos, I think we learned these Rambans on Lech Lecha, we learned those Rambans together, because of the klal in Chazal of כל מה שאירע לאבות אירע לבנים. But again notice, and I think we noted this then as well, that כל מה שאירע לאבות אירע לבנים is not only that it's foreshadowing, because foreshadowing wouldn't make it Sefer Hayetzira. The fact that Yitzchak Avinu, the fact that what happened to Avraham Avinu foreshadows what would happen in the subsequent course of Jewish history, that wouldn't make it Sefer Hayetzira. But if what happens to Avraham Avinu, if what Avraham Avinu does creates patterns which subsequently Jewish history will follow, that's Sefer Hayetzira, because basically it means that the nucleus for all of subsequent history was created through the Maaseh Avos. Again the klal of כל מה שאירע לאבות אירע לבנים is not only that it foreshadows, but that it creates the patterns that the rest of Jewish history follows. ואחרי שהשלים היצירה, based on this Ramban, I heard a very very nice vort, the same vort we discussed this but both beshem Rav Hutner as well as Rav Shwadron the Yerushalayimer Maggid, we talked about this? The psukim record Yosef's death both in Sefer Bereishis and in Sefer Shemos. מה שאין כן לשבטים, their death is only recorded in Sefer Shemos. Two obvious questions: number one, the repetition of misas Yosef, and number two, the differentiation between Yosef and the other brothers. Both Rav Hutner and Rav Shwadron said based on this Ramban that Sefer Bereishis is Sefer Hayetzira which again encompasses not only sheishes yemei bereishis but the lives of the Avos. אגב שהגמרא בברכות אומרת שאין קורין לאבות אלא לשלושה, but Yosef bemiktzas had the status of an av. Again it's consistent with the Gemara in Berachos of אין קורין לאבות אלא לשלושה because of that modifier, because of that caveat that Yosef bemiktzas had the status of an av. as is reflected by the fact that Yosef was the father of shvatim. Right? Yaakov Avinu, that's something which only can be true of an av—to be the progenitor, to be the father of shvatim, is only, only an av. So Yosef, by through Menashe and Ephraim, has that. But Yosef bemiktzas is an av, not entirely. So that's very good. So Yosef's death is recorded both in Sefer Bereishis and in Sefer Shemos. Yosef straddles; he, he belongs to Sefer Bereishis because bemiktzas he has this status of an av. But, but only bemiktzas, he also belongs to Sefer Shemos. He doesn't belong to Sefer Yetzira. The other shvatim, the other Shivtei Koh, they didn't have this status of being an av. So therefore, their—the Torah records their death davka in, in Sefer Shemos. וימת יוסף וכל אחיו וכל הדור ההוא. Okay. Veacharei shehishlim hayetzira, says the Ramban, התחיל ספר אחר בענין המעשה הבא מן הרמזים מהם. So now Sefer Shemos, we begin with what, what was nitztayer beSefer Bereishis, but what was the patterns that were anticipated, the processes that were set in motion by the lives of the avos. So they begin to materialize here in Sefer Shemos. Right, we saw the Ramban says that Avraham Avinu going down to Mitzrayim foreshadows our going down to Mitzrayim for Galus Mitzrayim.

ואחרי שהשלים היצירה התחיל ספר אחר בענין המעשה הבא מן הרמזים מהם ונתייחד ספר ואלה שמות.

But, but that's true of Vayikra, Bamidbar, and Devarim also. Right? So that doesn't give you the, the sort of defining theme of Sefer Shemos.

ונתייחד ספר ואלה שמות בענין הגלות הראשון הנגזר בפירוש ובגאולה ממנו.

So the theme of Sefer Shemos is Galus, Galus Rishon, uGeula. That, that's the defining theme. That's what gives the Sefer Shemos, Chumash Shemos, its, its, its unity.

ולכן חזר והתחיל בשמות יורדי מצרים ומספרם אף על פי שכבר נכתב זה בעבור כי ירידתם שם הוא ראשית הגלות כי מאז הוחל.

Right? The Ramban's explaining a different repetition.

והנה הגלות איננו נשלם עד יום שובם אל מקומם ואל מעלת אבותם ישובו. וכשיצאו ממצרים אף על פי שיצאו מבית עבדים עדיין יחשבו גולים כי היו בארץ לא להם נבוכים במדבר. וכשבאו אל הר סיני ועשו המשכן ושב הקדוש ברוך הוא והשרה שכינתו ביניהם אז שבו אל מעלת אבותם שהיה סוד אלוה עלי אהליהם והן הם המרכבה ואז נחשבו גאולים ולכן נשלם הספר הזה בהשלימו ענין המשכן ובהיות כבוד השם מלא אותו תמיד.

So the Ramban says that the category of galus is not simply a political category. And and similarly the galus of Mitzrayim wasn't just a geographical galus, so that as soon as we left Mitzrayim that meant the galus had ended. But the significance, the geography, the the political dimension, those are all significant in terms of their implications and in terms of what they manifest in terms of spiritual galus. And ultimately, the the ultimate definition of galus is spiritual and that's why even when the political galus is reversed, even when geographically the galus is terminated, it doesn't mean that the galus is over because Ultimately golus means to be exiled mima'alas avosom from that connection to Hakadosh Baruch Hu, from that hashras hashchina, and the golus is only over when that hashras hashchina is is reinstated. Sort of inyan l'inyan that the Rav zecher tzadik livracha used to say that when people talk about the significance of the particular days, let's say of Yom Ha'atzmaut and Yom Yerushalayim, hey iyar and chaf ches iyar, so so you often hear the comment that that there's more inherent significance to chaf ches iyar than there is to hey iyar. Nothing militarily happened on hey iyar, right on hey iyar there was a proclamation, was when the Medina was was proclaimed. Ma she'ein kein on chaf ches iyar they actually liberated the the old city, they actually conquered the old city. So the day is more significant. And and the Rav used to say, you know that fact notwithstanding, but the significance of Yerushalayim is Yerushalayim is is the machaneh in Mikdash, it was this way in in the Mishkan b'Midbar also and then in in Mikdash as well. So there are gimmel machanos, there's machaneh Shechina, there's machaneh Leviyah, and there's machaneh Yisrael. So in the midbar, so the machaneh Shechina was where the Mishkan stood, the machaneh Leviyah was where הלוויים יחנו סביב למשכן and then machaneh Yisrael was then the yud beis shevatim were around where the Levi'im were. And and those were the gimmel machanos. And in Mikdash the gimmel machanos were machaneh Shechina extended until the Azarah, machaneh Leviyah extended for all of Har HaBayis, and machaneh Yisrael extended through Yerushalayim. Again, not the new city of Yerushalayim, the Ir Atika, the old, bein hachomos, the old city of Yerushalayim. So the Rav used to say the whole significance of Yerushalayim, Yerushalayim stands out because of its belonging to Mikdash. And and the again, without not dismissing Rachmana litzlan the you know the significance or how amazing it is to have reconquered, but shichrur Yerushalayim is not complete until the Beis HaMikdash is rebuilt. Very similar to you know very parallel type of point the Ramban is making here that leaving Mitzrayim, okay yes that was that was an important step to build on because once you left Mitzrayim, once you once we got we were extricated from the political and geographical golus, so then we could be we could be redeemed from the spiritual golus as well. And here too obviously the Beis HaMikdash wasn't going to be rebuilt while Har HaBayis was in Jordanian hands. But but it's incomplete what was accomplished on Yom Yerushalayim is again, Yerushalayim is special because of its being a part of Mikdash. So in terms of the question of saying Hallel, it's really a bigger question on Yom Yerushalayim than it is on Yom Ha'atzmaut because of Yom Ha'atzmaut okay so there's a Medina. Ma she'ein kein Yerushalayim, but Yerushalayim is still it's still ha'ir hachareivah, it's still ha'ir hachareivah, doesn't matter how many people Baruch Hashem we now have the zechus of of living in the Ir Atika, but it's still ha'ir hachareivah because Yerushalayim is only restored when when there's a Mikdash. Two quick questions, first one is the Ramban talks about מעשה אבות סימן לבנים, is he only referring to that in the context of Sefer Bereishis, what do we do about like what Even when the Nevi'im compare, even when the Ramban talks about מעשה אבות סימן לבנים and he talks about it in the context of Sefer Bereishis, does that extend to the other sforim of Chumash also? Like the way that in Nevi'im will describe the ge'ula atida to ge'ulas Mitzrayim, or or we make parallels between different events in Chumash to later things in Navi and Chazal and things like that? And the second question is even lefi the Rav's vort about Yerushalayim, wouldn't we still say that there's still like ke-ein hashra'as ha-Shechinah because when the Rambam talks about in Beis HaBechira about about the Kosel HaMa'aravi and and that mokom that kedusha le-osid over there and it's never going to be buttel and the Shechinah's always shoreh there? So isn't there still? But that was true, that was true when the Jordanians had it from 48 to 67, it was true when the English had it before that, and it was true when the Turks had it also that the kedusha was eino beteilah. Now that Klal Yisrael had it, there's no change in the kedusha. You still have the kedusha sort of nisteres because it's a mokom hanivchar. But the upgrade will happen with Binyan HaMikdash. There was no upgrade in kedushas hamokom when when Tzahal... again, it's not that doesn't dismiss it, it doesn't say that it just says that that what happened. Hakamas HaMedina is a davar shalem. Is a davar shalem. The reconquest of Yerushalayim is a davar she'eino shalem. That that that's what the Rav used to say. I'm sorry, in terms of the for the first question, so yes, it's restricted to Sefer Bereishis. Any parallels that you'll that that we'll find, let's say, to the other Chumashim, it's because well, whatever happened in Sefer Shmos has its roots in Sefer Bereishis also. So it's really the pattern that's being followed is the Sefer Bereishis pattern, not not the Sefer Shmos pattern. When the Ramban says that when they built the Mishkan they were shavu le-ma'alas avosam, does that mean that you don't really need the geographical ge'ula as long as you have a spiritual ge'ula? What about the inyan Eretz Yisrael? Right, that's what you're asking, the inyan Eretz Yisrael. I don't know, that's a great question. I'm not sure I'm not sure what the answer is, but maybe part of the answer is that even when the avos were there, they weren't there with kedushas ha'aretz. Right? The simple pshat is that Eretz Yisrael only gets kedusha... there is one pshat, the Gemara in Yevamos has a lashon that ירושה ראשונה ושנייה יש להם שלישית אין להם. So most Rishonim, this is the way we assume la-halacha, that yerusha rishona means bi-yemei Yehoshua, kibush Yehoshua, and yerusha shniya means bi-yemei Ezra. There is one and and that's the basis for saying that kedusha shniya was le-osid lavo, it wasn't forfeited by galus Romi, whereas kibush Yehoshua was forfeited by galus Bavel. And that's why we we assume la-halacha I think. There is one pshat in the Rishonim that ירושה ראשונה יש להם is bi-yemei ha-avos, and yerusha shniya is bi-yemei Yehoshua, and shelishis ein lahem means that shel Yehoshua was le-osid lavo. But does even that mean that there was kedushas ha'aretz? I don't know. But certainly the way we assume, so maybe that's why the Ramban is not factoring in that in Sefer Shmos we don't enter Eretz Yisrael because the avos, if you measure Eretz Yisrael by kedushas ha'aretz, the avos weren't in Eretz Yisrael either. Hagam, again, that the Ramban says, you know, that again, if you measure it by kedushas ha'aretz. You know, the Rav used to say that Eretz Yisrael has an inherent intrinsic status even without kedusha. That's what he used to quote from his father, shem Eretz Yisrael, which means that Eretz Yisrael has the he used to say from his father, there are three dinim in the Rambam where the Rambam says that bizman hazeh it needs Eretz Yisrael but you can do it in the מקומות שכבש יהושע ולא החזיקו עולי בבל. So the מקומות שכבש יהושע ולא החזיקו עולי בבל don't have kedushas ha'aretz bizman hazeh because kibush Yehoshua was battel. And that's why we we assume la-halacha I think. even though that wasn't in מקומות שהחזיקו עולי בבל. The Rambam says that eglah arufah is only ba'aretz. I think eglah arufah is in Ever HaYarden as well. I think the Rambam in הלכות רוצח ושמירת נפש says that, I think. And the third one, smicha, smichas chachamim, that you can only give smicha in Eretz Yisrael. So the Rambam says you can have smicha bizman hazeh in Ever HaYarden. So, but it's not Eretz Yisrael, not kedushas ha'aretz. No, that's what Rav Soloveitchik used to say. No, there's kedushas Eretz Yisrael and shem Eretz Yisrael. And again, what shem Eretz Yisrael means is that there is an intrinsic intrinsic quality or difference to Eretz Yisrael even without kedushas ha'aretz. So when we say the avos weren't in Eretz Yisrael, it means they weren't in Eretz Yisrael measured by kedushas ha'aretz. And again, and the Ramban himself obviously holds from this yesod. How do you see it? You see it in two things. Number one, the distinction the Ramban draws that the avos only observed the Torah in Eretz Yisrael. So, but that was before kedushas ha'aretz. And then you also have the Ramban in the beginning of Gittin, Tosafos on daf bais in Gittin, the first mishna in Gittin, when it's talking about that המביא גט ממדינת הים, if a shliach brings a get from chutz la'aretz, he has to say בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם. If he brings it from chutz la'aretz to Eretz Yisrael, he has to say בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם. Okay, the Gemara discusses why they made this takkana etc. So in that context, the mishna gives gvulas ha'aretz. So Tosafos has certain stiras about let's say Akko. Akko is Eretz Yisrael, Akko is not Eretz Yisrael. So from the mishna it sounds like it's not. But the Gemara says that when Rav Zeira, Rav Papa, one of the Amoraim, you know, came to Akko, he would bend down and kiss the ground. So how can that be? So the Ramban answers that chibas ha'aretz and kedushas ha'aretz are not ha beha talya. So there too, you see that there's Eretz Yisrael even when it doesn't have kedushas ha'aretz. But it could be that אף על פי כן, what the Ramban is saying is that in terms of this galus, so here we're measuring Eretz Yisrael by kedushas ha'aretz, in which case the avos weren't in Eretz Yisrael either, and that's why the geula is complete even when they're still in the midbar once they get to Ma'amad Har Sinai and have the Mishkan. Okay, so we'll stop here.