Ramban – Parshas Vayechi: Commitment. Malchus Beis Dovid.

Kvar hizkarti Kivradat Yaakov L'mitzrayim remez begallus hashlishis I think we saw that together. הגלותנו היום ביד החיה הרביעית. In the nevuah and in the vision of the Arba Malchuyos, so some explain that Edom and Yishmael count as one galus. Meanwhile when the Ramban was writing, so Klal Yisrael was suffering at the hands of Christians and today it's basically Yishmael is the source of tzaros for Yisrael. We sort of understandably on one level see a complete and total separation between Edom and Yishmael and between Christianity and Islam. There is a very strong tzad hashava though, which is what the two have in common, is that unlike the earlier malchuyos, the thrust of their opposition and persecution of Knesses Yisrael is their seek to is their seeking, is their attempt to supplant us as the am hanivchar. And in that sense there's a unity of ideology and purpose between Christianity and Islam. הגלותנו היום ביד החיה הרביעית רומי הרשעה. The Ramban, again as we had seen some of this earlier as he himself just cross-referenced,

בני יעקב הם עצמם סיבבו ירידתם שם במכירת יוסף אחיהם.

That on one level as this created the pattern and foreshadowed our galus, so they brought it upon themselves.

ויעקב ירד שם מפני הרעב וחשב להינצל עם בנו בבית אוהב לו. כי פרעה אוהב את יוסף וכבן לו. והיו סבורים לעלות משם ככלות הרעב מארץ כנען כמו שאמרו לגור בארץ באנו.

lagur lashon ger, to be strangers, we're here temporarily.

כי אין מרעה לצאן אשר לעבדיך כי כבד הרעב בארץ כנען והנה לא עלו אבל ארכה עליהם הגלות.

umess sham, Yaakov Avinu dies in Mitzrayim vaya'alu atzmosav. וזקני פרעה ושריו העלוהו ועשו עמו אבל כבד. Now the Ramban spells out the analog to each of these:

וכן אנחנו עם רומי ואדום אחינו הסבונו בהיותנו בידם כי כרתו ברית עם הרומיים.

We involved the Romiyim in our internal affairs. ואגריפס המלך האחרון דבית שני ברח אליהם לעזרה. umipnei hara'av the last tekufa of Bayis Sheni, so there was a tremendous famine. nilkedu anshei Yerushalayim. And that was in many ways the makkah b'patish.

והגלות הלך וארך עלינו מאוד. ולא נודע הקיצו כשאר הגלויות.

Ramban comments, I think it's in Parshat Bechukotai that the Ramban comments that we have the two Tokhachot in the Torah and Bechukotai and Ki Tavo. The one in Bechukotai, the Torah it ends on a positive note.

וזכרתי את בריתי יעקב ואף את בריתי יצחק ואף את בריתי אברהם אזכר והארץ אזכר

whereas the Tokhacha in Ki Tavo just ends abruptly without any Divrei Nechama, without talking about how HaKadosh Baruch Hu is going to save us. So the Ramban says what that reflects is that Galut Bavel was for a limited amount of time. HaKadosh Baruch Hu promised us be'nevuah it was going to be for seventy years and not longer. Ma she'ein kein the Galut Edom, today's Galut, so there the fact that there is no end which is depicted at the end of the Tokhacha is because the Galut is open-ended. How long it's going to be depends upon us. Depends upon us, but it's open-ended. It wasn't assigned a set period of time. לא נודע קיצו כשאר הגלויות. V'anachnu vo what's the analog to Yaakov Avinu his bones being brought back to Eretz Yisrael?

ואנחנו בו כמתים אמרם יבשו עצמותינו נגזרנו לנו. ויעלו אותנו מכל העמים מנחה לה' ויהיה להם אבל כבד בראותם כבודנו. ואנחנו נראה בנקמת ה' יקימנו ונחיה לפניו. ויקרבו ימי ישראל למות פתרונו כאשר קרבו ימי ישראל למות קרב נוי יופיו והוא בשנה האחרון לימיו ועניינו.

So what indicated to Yaakov Avinu that his death was approaching?

כי הרגיש בעצמו אפיסת הכוחות ויסור החולשה ואיננו חולה אבל ידע כי באו ימי חולשתו.

Ramban says that even absent any illness there is a sense that a person can have simply just of the ebbing of his strength. And when the person has that acute sense of afisat hakochot that his strength is ebbing and he experiences this overwhelming sense of weakness, so the person recognizes that his vitality is leaving him and that his days are numbered. ולכן קרא לבנו ליוסף. That served as the impetus for calling Yosef. ואחרי שוב יוסף ממצרים דהנה חולה. It wasn't just this general indicator but very specifically.

והוגד ליוסף ויבוא לפניו עם שני בניו כדי שיתברכו. וכן ויקרבו ימי דוד למות

it's the same phenomenon as

ויקרבו ימי ישראל למות ושם נאמר אנכי הולך בדרך כל הארץ כי ידע בנפשו כן. השבעה לי וישבע לו לא היה יעקב חושד בבנו הצדיק האוהב לא שימלא מצוות אביו ועל הדבר שהבטיחו ואמר אנכי אעשה כדברך.

So why does Yaakov tell Yosef that he has to be nishba?

אבל עשה כן לחזק העניין בעיני פרעה אולי לא יתנהו רשות להיפרד ממנו ויאמר לו שלחת אחיך ואת עבדיך ויעלהו משם או שיחפוץ פרעה שיקבר הנביא בארצו לכבוד להם ולזכות ולכן השביעו.

So it's interesting, according to the first explanation the Ramban gives, so Yaakov Avinu it's not only that he wants to be buried in Eretz Yisrael in Ma'arat HaMachpelah but he bedafka wants that Yosef should be involved in the kvura. Because the Ramban's first explanation as to why Yaakov Avinu is mashbia Yosef is that

אולי לא יתנהו רשות להיפרד ממנו ויאמר לו שלחת אחיך ואת עבדיך

meaning not that Pharaoh wouldn't... Again, it's not it's not there's nothing problematic about that that that we need to find an answer an explanation that Yaakov Avinu would have wanted that, but it just so happens that it could be that maybe maybe Yaakov Avinu also understood before Yaakov Avinu goes down to Mitzrayim, so the Pasuk Hakadosh Baruch Hu says to him

אנכי ארד עמך מצרימה ואנכי אעלך גם עלה ויוסף ישית ידו על עיניך.

So what's ואנכי אעלך גם עלה Yaakov Avinu dies in Mitzrayim. So Rashi quotes from Chazal דהבטיחו להיות נקבר בארץ. Hakadosh Baruch Hu promises him that he'll be zoiche to kvura b'Eretz Yisrael. So what's ויוסף ישית ידו על עיניך? So itachin what it means is that there is a minhag if if when a person is nifter if the eyes are open, so the minhag is to close the eyes. The Chevra Kadisha will will close the nifter's eyes. So ויוסף ישית ידו על עיניך yitachin is emblematic of being misasek b'kvura. So that Hakadosh Baruch Hu told Yaakov Avinu that Yosef is gonna be the one who's gonna be instrumental in your kvura. So in giving this tzava, so Yaakov Avinu is not only looking or maybe not at all looking to satisfy his own his own preferences for kvura, but also to to facilitate this this nevuah materializing. Lachein hishbia. And that's why Yaakov Avinu was mashbia Yosef כדי שלא יהיה נכון להעביר על שבועתו because Yaakov sensed that Paroh would not insist that Yosef violate a shvua. Vegam, this next line is is remarkable rabosai. Vegam

וגם יוסף יצטרך יותר להשתדל בעניין מפני השבועה. וכן היה הדבר כמו שאמר עליו פרעה עלה וקבור את אביך כאשר השביעך.

But what's that line the Ramban inserts there וגם יוסף יצטרך יותר להשתדל בעניין מפני השבועה? I mean the Ramban said at the outset that Yaakov Avinu wasn't choshed בבנו הצדיק האהוב לו that he would that he would not honor his commitment. So there's there's a tremendous yesod reflected in this line of the Ramban. To what lengths a person goes to honor a commitment correlates with just how absolute that commitment is. And even even Yosef who was above any suspicion, who was above any doubt of of not exerting himself to honor his commitment to his father, but terms of... terms of how strongly he would have to lobby Pharaoh, how hard he would have to push, so even for Yosef HaTzaddik, Yaakov saw that there would be a correlation between what Yosef did and the depth and the absoluteness of the commitment. And even Yosef, he recognized that גם יוסף יצטרך יותר השתדלות בעניין, as much as Yosef would have been mishtadel even without the shvuah. If Yosef would have given 100% without the shvuah, so then Yaakov Avinu recognized that with a shvuah he'll have to give 120%. It's a tremendous yesod in life in general, rabosai. How, whether whether we sort of see something as being possible or being realistic sometimes is a reflection of just how important it really is to us. And sometimes something that seems too difficult, and and the the challenge seems too formidable, and the obstacles seem too great, but if there's a sense of just how profoundly important it is, so then we find a way to overcome the obstacles and we find a way to meet the challenges and to make it happen. If it's a very, very, very good thing to learn every day, so probably most days I'll learn. But if it's an absolute to learn every day, כי הם חיינו ואורך ימינו, if it's an absolute to learn every day, so then that will translate. Because the effort which one puts forth reflects the depth of commitment and the way the person relates to the commitment. And even for Yosef HaTzaddik, there's a difference between a commitment to his father and between a commitment bishvuah to his father. But ultimately, you know, the difference between the higher level commitment and the other commitment is not only those few days when a person is especially tared. Because once a person misses those few days, and again, this is just one illustration of in many areas of avodas Hashem, but once a person misses those few days, so then it it erodes the commitment. And the difference isn't just that the person with the absolute commitment, you know, will learn 365 days a year and the person with a lesser commitment will learn 360 days a year. No, the first year it'll be that way. But the second year it'll be 365 to 330, and and it will be holech v'pocheis. Let's take a look here on it's פרק מ"ח פסוק ט"ו. It's midway through the Ramban, אלקים אשר התהלכו אבותי לפניו אברהם ויצחק. So we're just going to sort of take one line out of context, that's this part of the Ramban he's explaining the פסוק על פי קבלה, but we'll just take one line out of context. So the pasuk:

ויברך את יוסף ויאמר אלקים אשר התהלכו אבותי לפניו אברהם ויצחק האלקים הרעה אתי מעודי עד היום הזה.

So if you see where it says ויתכן שיהיה הרעה אתי. If you see that line rabosai,

ויתכן שיהיה הרעה אתי מגזרת רעך ורע אביך אל תעזב.

Meaning the simple pshat of the Ramban figures we're operating within until he introduces his veyitachen is that roeh is lashon roeh tzon. That the same way the shepherd takes the sheep out to pasture, he's being roeh tzon, so that's what it means HaElokim haro'eh osi. Like HaKadosh Baruch Hu who is mashgiach, has been mashgiach over me. And then the Ramban suggests no, maybe haro'eh osi is רעך ורע אביך אל תעזב, לשון ואהבת לרעך כמוך, that it comes from the shoresh of friend. Rashi has a similar notion in Parshas Balak on the pasuk of ה' אלקיו עמו ותרועת מלך בו. So Rashi says teruas melech bo is not lashon toot-toot-toot, but useruas melech bo is lashon reius. That Hashem Elokav imo, that HaKadosh Baruch Hu is with, is with Bnei Yisrael, and the friendship of the Melech is with them. How does this connect to what we had yesterday in the Gemara about what the Gemara says very, very disapprovingly chavrusah o misusa? So the answer is that friendship, depending upon the context in which one invokes it, can represent different things. One association with friendship is that a friend is someone upon whom you can rely, whom you can count on, right? A friend in need is a friend indeed. A friend is someone who's there when we need him. That's one association with friendship. Another association with friendship is a sense of comfort which allows for letting one's guard down and casual behavior and joking around and not necessarily being so serious. That's also an association that we have with friendship. When we speak of

אלקים הרעה אתי מלשון רעות, ה' אלקיו עמו ותרועת מלך בו,

it means it's referencing that first association of friendship. The sense that a person's best friend is HaKadosh Baruch Hu because He's the only friend who's always there. No one else can promise to guarantee to always be there and even if they're always there they can't promise or guarantee to be in a position to help. So a person's best friend is What when Chazal say very critically chavrusa klapei Shamaya, it means the sense of casualness that that we have with with a friend, that in that sense Hakadosh Baruch Hu is not, Hakadosh Baruch Hu is not not not not our friend. That's not the nature or or the tone of the relationship. Rashi in Shabbos in in the famous Gemara with with the ger who first comes before Shammai and then before Hillel and says למדני כל התורה כלה על רגל אחת and then Hillel, Shammai throws him out and Hillel paraphrases for him ve'ahavta lere'acha kamocha. So Rashi there in Shabbos quotes this pasuk, the same pasuk as the Ramban, רעך ורע אביך אל תעזוב. That the way ve'ahavta lere'acha kamocha encapsulates kol haTorah kullah is that the re'a is that Hillel is is interpreting the pasuk for the ger that the re'a is Hakadosh Baruch Hu. So ve'ahavta lere'acha kamocha means you have to do what your friendship means to do what your friend wants, רצונו של אדם הוא כבודו, to do what your friend wants but but there too that same depiction of Hakadosh Baruch Hu as as a person's friend, as a person's best friend. Maybe we'll take a look a little bit here in the Ramban on לא יסור שבט מיהודה. ענינו שלא יסור לעולם. The sense of lo yasur doesn't mean that malchus in Shevet Yehuda will continue forever uninterrupted. Ki kasuv, it says in the Tochacha,

יולך ה׳ אותך ואת מלכך אשר תקים עליך אל גוי אשר לא ידעת אתה ואבתיך. והנה הם ומלכם בגולה.

They don't have another melech vesarim. And what's more, again we know that's what the Torah prophesied and and that's what we we've seen and continue to see in our history,

ימים רבים אין מלך בישראל. והנביא לא יבטיח את ישראל שלא ילכו בשבי בשום עון בעבור שימלוך עליהם יהודה.

And bechlal, it's inconceivable that the pasuk would mean that even if we didn't have the pasuk in Ki Savo and even if we didn't know Jewish history, how can it be that that the Navi is saying no matter what you'll do, your kingdom will flourish? Aval inyano, what the pasuk clearly means is

שלא יסור שבט מיהודה אל אחד מאחיו. כי מלכות ישראל המושל עליהם ממנו יהיה.

It's not, it won't leave from Yehuda to any of the other shevatim.

ולא ימשול אחד מאחיו עליו. וכן לא יסור מחוקק מבין רגליו שכל מחוקק בישראל אשר בידו טבעת המלך ממנו יהיה. כי הוא ימשול ויצוה בכל ישראל ולא חסם המלכות. עד כי יבא שילה ולו יקהת כל העמים לעשות בכולם כרצונו.

Vezehu haMashiach.

כי שבט ירמוז לדוד שהוא המלך הראשון אשר לו שבט מלכות ושילה הוא בנו אשר לו יקהת העמים. ולא יתכן מאמר רבי אברהם שיהיה שילה דוד. כי והיה ליהודה שבט קודם דוד.

Shilo is the is the later stage. The initial stage is lo yasur shevet. There was no initial stage for Shevet Yehuda before Dovid HaMelech.

כי אף על פי ששבטו נכבד ונושא בתחלה. אין שבט רק למלך ומושל

k'dikhtiv שבט מישור שבט מלכותך shevet moshlin shevet limshol. V'hakasuv hazeh ramaz

כי יעקב המליך שבט יהודה על אחיו והוריש ליהודה הממשלה על ישראל והוא מה שאמר דוד ויבחר ה' אלוהי ישראל בי מכל בית אבי להיות למלך על ישראל לעולם כי ביהודה בחר לנגיד ובבית יהודה בית אבי ובבני אבי בי רצה להמליך על כל ישראל.

So in the tzava'ah of Yaakov Avinu we only know that it's going to be Shevet Yehuda and that's what David HaMelech says later and now Hakadosh Baruch Hu narrowed it down and the bechirah is

ויבחר ה' אלוהי ישראל בי מכל בית אבי. ואמר לא יסור לרמוז כי ימלוך שבט אחר על ישראל

that initially there will be malchus from a different shevet, i.e., Shaul. However,

אבל מעת שיחל להיות ליהודה שבט מלכות לא יסור ממנו לשבט אחר.

And that's why the pasuk depicts that once melucha begins in Shevet Yehuda lo yasur, but not that it's not from the very get-go that it's going to be that it's going to be from Shevet Yehuda. V'ha'inyan Shaul haya. So why is this takeh? Why is the do we have Shaul before David? So just agav, the pashtus is that Yehoshua was also a melech. So Yehoshua is also not from Shevet from Shevet Yehuda. So I don't know why in this Ramban he's only sort of focusing on Shaul as a melech who preceded the establishment of malchus in Shevet Yehuda. I'd say when the pasuk that a mored b'malchus is chayav misa. Sorry, just one minute.

כל המורד במלך יש למלך רשות להורגו. אפילו גזר פרק ג' הלכה ח' הלכות מלכים אפילו גזר על אחד משאר העם שילך למקום פלוני ולא הלך או שלא יצא מביתו ויצא חייב מיתה ואם רצה להורגו יהרוג שנאמר כל איש אשר ימרה את פיך.

And that's from Yehoshua, perek alef. That's what Hakadosh Baruch Hu says to Yehoshua bin Nun. Anyone who crosses you, anyone who will disobey an order you give, כל איש אשר ימרה את פיך will be chayav misa in on what basis? As a mored b'malchus. So I don't know what's pshat here in the Ramban. I don't know, he doesn't think Yehoshua had a din melech or I don't know, but the Ramban is only explaining why we have Shaul before Shevet Yehuda assumes malchus.

ועניין שאול היה כי בעבור שדבר שאלת המלכות בעת ההיא היה נמאס אצל הקדוש ברוך הוא.

It was abominable. So therefore since since the request was shelo k'hogen, so Hakadosh Baruch Hu did not want that to usher in the malchus, His bechirah of David.

לא רצה להמליך עליהם מן השבט אשר לו המלכות שלא יסור ממנו לעולמים ונתן להם מלכות שעה ולזה רמז הכתוב שאמר אתן לך מלך באפי. ואקח בעברתי שנתנו שלא ברצונו ולכן לקחו בעברתו שנהרג הוא ובניו

Shaul and his sons

ונפסקה ממנו המלכות. והיה כל זה מפני שהיה שמואל שופט ונביא ולוחם מלחמותיהם על פי השם ומושיע אותם ולא היה להם לשאול מלך בימיו. כמו שאמר להם

Hashem Elokeichem malkeichem, HaKadosh Baruch Hu

אמר להם לא אותך מאסו כי אותי מאסו ממלוך עליהם.

So this line in the Ramban, again just to reread:

והיה כל זה מפני שהיה שמואל שופט ונביא ולוחם מלחמותיהם על פי השם ומושיע אותם ולא היה להם לשאול מלך בימיו.

So here basically the Ramban is giving the same definition of malchus that the Rambam has. The Rambam has at the end of פרק ד' הלכות מלכים speaking of the melech, he says: ובכל יהיו מעשיו לשם שמים. The melech has tremendous powers, but he has to exercise them

אך ורק לשם שמים. ותהיה מחשבתו ומגמתו להרים דת האמת ולמלאות העולם צדק ולשבור זרוע הרשעים ולהילחם מלחמות השם שאין ממליכים מלך תחילה אלא לעשות משפט ומלחמה.

The two primary responsibilities of the melech is מלך במשפט יעמיד ארץ, is that the melech is supposed to enforce that there's mishpat in the world. And number two, to wage war as necessary, when necessary.

שאין ממליכים מלך תחילה אלא לעשות משפט ומלחמה שנאמר ושפטנו מלכנו ויצא לפנינו ונלחם את מלחמותינו.

So that's exactly when you reread our Ramban, that's what the Ramban says: מפני שהיה שמואל שופט ונביא ולוחם מלחמותיהם. There was no void that the melech was supposed to fill. It clearly wasn't the right time, the right moment in history to begin with the mitzvah of minui melech because the melech's primary spheres of responsibility were being fulfilled as well as they possibly could be. You can't have a better situation than what you have a navi such as Shmuel who is a shofet and who is לוחם מלחמותיהם על פי השם. So there's no room for minui melech at that point. And that's why in response when they request then, so HaKadosh Baruch Hu disapproved and he didn't want that that malchus beis Dovid should begin in response to that wrong request. The Ramban says the same, the Ramban says in Perek Alef, he says:

מאחר שהקמת המלך מצווה למה לא רצה הקדוש ברוך הוא כששאלו מלך משמואל לפי ששאלו בתרעומת.

They postured that they wanted a melech for mishpat and for milchama. But really it was out of spurning and rejecting Shmuel because they had all the mishpat and milchama that the melech would be responsible for. אלא מפני שקצו בשמואל הנביא. And that's what HaKadosh Baruch Hu tells him: שנאמר כי לא אותך מאסו כי אותי מאסו. In spurning you they're spurning me, HaKadosh Baruch Hu says. All this stands in contrast, if you take a look in Rashi in Sanhedrin in the second perek. So Rashi in Sanhedrin says that the point of malchus is mishpat, not milchama. Okay, if it happens that there's need for milchama, so then the melech has to step up. But the point of minui melech Rashi says is mishpat, not milchama. The pasuk, it's actually the pasuk that the Rambam quotes, you'll take a look there in the Gemara Sanhedrin in the baraisa of Rabbi Nehorai there. The pasuk that the Rambam quotes which identifies identifies the two spheres of ושפטנו מלכנו ויצא לפנינו ונלחם מלחמותינו was actually said by those who were asking, demanding for a melech, and they said initially vehayinu kechol hagoyim and veshaftanu malkenu etcetera. So Rashi understands that they distorted the description of what malchut is supposed to be in their desire to be kechol hagoyim. And the Rambam says no, the description they gave was takeh correct, but the impetus that they had for asking and the desire to be kechol hagoyim rather than to be mekayem a mitzvah is where the distortion lay. Maybe just one more ohr here in the Ramban. ולפי דעתי היו המלכים, well actually a little bit more.

ומה שאמר הכתוב נסכלת לא שמרת מצות ה' אלוקיך אשר צוך כי עתה הכין ה' את ממלכתך אל ישראל עד עולם.

So it sounds like Shmuel tells Shaul it's because of your chet, because you didn't kill Agag, because you didn't wipe out Amalek, that's why you're losing melucha. Had you

כי עתה הכין ה' את ממלכתך אל ישראל עד עולם.

So it sounds like that Shaul's kingship could have continued l'dorei doros. שמלוכה היתה לזרע המלוכה בישראל. So the Ramban has two possible answers to this. Number one is

לא על כולם וזה טעם אל ישראל, אילו היה אולי היה מלך על שבטי אמו, על בנימין ואפרים ומנשה. כי יהודה ואפרים כשני עממים נחשבו מישראל, או היה מלך תחת מלך יהודה.

So what would have continued l'olam? Either לא יסור שבט מיהודה means that Yehuda will not be ruled by anyone else, but lav davka that Yehuda will rule al kol Yisrael. And there would have been two kings, one for the bnei Rachel and one for all the other bnei Yaakov. Or the Ramban says no, it would have been מלך תחת מלך יהודה that Shaul's descendants would have been the viceroys under Malchut Beit David. That's what the Ra'avad in Perek Aleph of Malachim says also like this second answer of the Ramban. והפלוגתא היא שהרמב"ם שם אומר, the pulmous is that the Rambam there says

שמלכי בית דוד הם העומדים לעולם שנאמר כסאך יהיה נכון עד עולם, אבל אם יעמוד מלך משאר ישראל תפסק המלוכה מביתו שהרי לירבעם נאמר אך לא כל הימים.

So I think, you take a look, I think the Ra'avad asks from this same pasuk that the Ramban is quoting by Shaul, that the pasuk by Shaul seems to indicate that there could be something ad olam by malchut she'ar shevatim, and that's why the Ra'avad says the same as the Ramban. No, it doesn't mean the melech, it means melech tachat melech.

ולפי דעתי היו המלכים המולכים על ישראל משאר השבטים אחרי דוד עוברים על דעת אביהם ומעבירים נחלה. והם היו סומכים על דבר אחיה השילוני הנביא שמשח לירבעם ואמר ואענה זרע דוד למען זאת אך לא כל הימים. וכאשר האריכו ישראל להמליך עליהם משאר השבטים מלך אחר מלך ולא היו חוזרים למלכות יהודה עברו על צוואת הזקן ונענשו בהם.

It was supposed to be a very temporary measure, and when they perpetuated it, so ein hachi nami, the Ramban says they were violating this. And then here the Ramban has such a I don't know frightening frightening, I think we saw this in the beginning of the perek:

וזה היה עונש החשמונאים שמלכו בבית שני, כי היו חסידי עליון, ואילמלא הם.

Look at this remarkable historical assessment: ואילמלא הם נשתכחה התורה והמצוות מישראל. If not for Chashmonaim, so there would have been total assimilation, we would have completely assimilated. אילמלא הם נשתכחה התורה והמצוות מישראל. Rambam wrote that about Rav Saadia Gaon. He says if not for Rav Saadia Gaon, so we would have all, we would have all assimilated. ואלמלא הם נשתכחה התורה והמצוות מישראל. They played such a pivotal, pivotal historical role.

ואף על פי כן נענשו עונש גדול כי ארבעת בני חשמונאי הזקן החסיד מולכים זה אחר זה עם כל גבורתם והצלחתם נפלו ביד אויביהם בחרב והגיע העונש בסוף למה שאמרו רבותינו ז"ל כל מאן דאמר מבית חשמונאי קאתינא עבדא הוא שנכרתו כולם בעוון הזה.

Pachad p'chadim. They were destroyed, they were obliterated because of this cheit of taking melucha and violating this din. So I don't know, maybe the pshat what the Ramban is saying is הקדוש ברוך הוא מדקדק עם צדיקים כחוט השערה and precisely because the Hashmonaim were hasidei elyon, that's why there was such a middas hadin. But yitachen that additionally the pshat is like this. It's not just that the Hashmonaim were guilty of an aveira. There's the din of לא יסור שבט מיהודה and they went and they violated that din. If the Hashmonaim had the b'chiros hatov, so this wouldn't have happened according to Ramban. The din of לא יסור שבט מיהודה is not just the din. It's the lashon hapassuk which the Ramban quoted earlier,

והוא מה שאמר דוד ויבחר השם אלוקי ישראל בי מכל בית אבי

l'melech al Yisrael. Initially Yehuda as a shevet and then it narrowed down to Beis David is bechira. Right, we find that Hakadosh Baruch Hu is bocher. Hakadosh Baruch Hu is bocher b'amo Yisrael, bechiras Yisrael. We find כי בחר השם בציון איווה למושב לו, that Hakadosh Baruch Hu was bocher from the whole world Har HaBayis, that that's where the Beis Hamikdash, the Beis Ha'olamim should be. And there was also a bechira of Malchus Beis David. Wherever there's bechira, it means this is how Hakadosh Baruch Hu reveals himself to the world. Bechiras Yisrael means that Hakadosh Baruch Hu reveals himself to the world through Klal Yisrael, which is why the Navi Yechezkel says that when we're in galus, it's a chillul Hashem. It's a chillul Hashem because Hakadosh Baruch Hu reveals himself to the world through us. The Beis Halevi explains that's what it means when the passuk in last week's, that we just looked at, about אנכי ארד עמך מצרימה ואנכי אעלך גם עלה. What does it mean that Hakadosh Baruch Hu, the anthropomorphism, and that Hakadosh Baruch Hu's going down to Mitzrayim? So what it means is that kavyachol, again obviously just anthropomorphism, I'm going down to Mitzrayim with you in the sense that I reveal myself because of the bris v'ha'avos, again which later becomes the basis for bechiras Yisrael at Har Sinai. I reveal myself to the world, Hakadosh Baruch Hu says, through you. So if you're in Mitzrayim, so then kavyachol, so then I'm going to be in Mitzrayim also. And kvod Hashem is not going to be nisgaleh and is not going to be revealed to the world. And it's only ואנכי אעלך גם עלה, I'll go up with you from Mitzrayim. The gilluy Shechina which we have in the Beis Hamikdash is כי בחר השם בציון. So too the melech basar v'dam represents Hakadosh Baruch Hu. He represents Hakadosh Baruch Hu. All the achadim in the world represent Hakadosh Baruch Hu, right? That's what Rashi quotes in Parshas Korach, that Moshe Rabbeinu said. He says other religions, he says you can have many Kohanim Gedolim. He says they have many gods, so you can have many everything. He says we have אין לנו אלא ה׳ אחד. And the same way there's a Hashem Echad, so then there's only one Kohen Gadol and don't think that only one person is going to survive from the Haktaras Haktores. So this isn't just an aveirah. It's not just a mitzvah. It's violating, it's kavyachol interfering with how Hakadosh Baruch Hu, Hakadosh Baruch Hu's hanhaga. Because bechira again, bechira means bechiras Yisrael, bechiras Tzion, bechiras beis Dovid. The Rambam in the yud gimmel ikkarim in the Yesod HaShleima mentions that the Melech HaMashiach is from zera Dovid. He mentions it within the yud gimmel ikkarim. Hakadosh Baruch Hu reveals himself to the world through these bechiros. So to encroach upon a bechira is an עון חמור עד מאד. That in conjunction with the fact that they were Chassidei Elyon is why according to the Ramban they suffered such a terrible onesh and kiveyachol suffered.