Ramban’s Hakdama

באימה ביראה ברתת בזיע ובמורא. So in that line that the Ramban's quoting from the Gemara in Berachos in kaf-beis, the Gemara says d'tanya

והודעתם לבניך ולבני בניך וכתיב יום אשר עמדת לפני השם אלקיך בחורב.

Ma le-halan, just as the experience that we had at Choreiv was

באימה וביראה וברתת ובזיע אף כאן באימה וביראה וברתת ובזיע.

The sense of fear and awe and trembling and shaking which defined the experience of Ma'amad Har Sinai should accompany us l'doros in our Talmud Torah. Talmud Torah should be באימה ביראה ברתת ובזיע. That's what the Ramban here is referencing.

מתפלל ומתוודה בלב נדכה ונפש שבורה שואל סליחה ומבקש מחילה וכפרה בקידה בבריכה בהשתחויה עד שיתפקקו כל חוליות שבשדרה.

So what occasions, what's triggering this viduy and the שאלת סליחה ביקוש מחילה וכפרה? So one can't help but be reminded of what the Nefesh Hachaim writes in

שער ד פרק ו. לזאת האמת שזו היא הדרך האמיתית אשר בה בחר הוא יתברך שמו.

Be-chol eis she-yachin ha-adam atzmo lilmod, where a person is setting himself to learn, ראוי לו להתיישב קודם שיתחיל. Before a person opens the Gemara, opens the Chumash, he should be misyashev, he should collect his thoughts and focus על כל פנים זמן מועט, at least a little bit of time ביראת השם טהורה בטהרת הלב. He should think about inyonei yiras Hashem and להתודות על חטאתו מעומקא דליבא. A person should be misvadeh, a person should do teshuva every time before he sits down to learn כדי שתהא תורתו קדושה וטהורה. That will allow that the Talmud Torah can be holy and pure. So one is certainly reminded by association of the Nefesh Hachaim when the Ramban writes that as he sits down to write his חידושים על התורה, he's מתפלל ומתוודה בלב נדכה ונפש שבורה, he שואל סליחה ומבקש מחילה וכפרה. But even though it's reminiscent, he means something totally different. He means something totally different. It's quite clear ei minei u-bei and then we'll בעזרת השם בלי נדר we'll try to buttress it from elsewhere in the Ramban that what he means in context here is if you continue ונפשי יודעת מאד ידיעה ברורה. I understand very, very well says the Ramban שאין ביצת הנמלה כנגד הגלגל העליון צעירה. If you look at a tiny egg of an ant, it doesn't even register against the vastness of the cosmos. It's nothing, you wouldn't even express it as some kind of fraction. It's nothing. It doesn't register. What's the analog to that? כשחכמתי קטנה ודעתי קצרה כנגד סתרי התורה. Ramban says I recognize how how minuscule my chachma is and how how small and puny my understanding is k'neged sitrei haTorah in relation to all the the hidden dimensions of Torah. הצפונים בביתה הצפונים בחדרה צפון ברוך right, which are hidden away inside the Torah.

כי כל יקר וכל פלא וכל סוד עמוק וכל חכמה מפוארה כמוס עמך חתום באוצרה.

All every wonder, every deep profound idea, every aspect of splendid chachma, all of it is hidden away within Torah. ברמז בדיבור בכתיבה באמירה. If we get that far, we'll see this even more explicitly later in the Hakdamah to Sefer Bereishis. So the Ramban clearly understands, let's say when the Mishnah in Avos says הפוך בה והפוך בה דכולה בה it means that kol chochmos sheba'olam are contained within Torah. And that's what the the what the Ramban is saying is, I'm being misvadeh and I'm being sho'el slicha, mevakesh mechila v'chapara because I recognize my unworthiness to undertake this task. And it's clear that he's not talking about a generic, he's not talking about the idea, again that beautiful profound idea of the Nefesh HaChaim that a person should be misvadeh before learning. It's a different beautiful profound idea that he's being misvadeh on his lack of worthiness for the task that he's undertaking. And it's dialectical. On the one hand, he's being misvadeh about חכמתי קטנה ודעתי קצרה. He's being sho'el slicha, mevakesh mechila v'chapara

כאשר אמר הנביא המפואר בלבוש מלכות והתורה משיח אלהי יעקב ונעים זמירות לכל תכלה ראיתי קץ.

Everything is in the world is finite, is limited, but v'rechava mitzvascha m'od, but Ribono Shel Olam, your Torah is so is so unlimited in in its breadth. ונאמר פלאות עדותיך על כן נצרתם נפשי. Your statutes are wondrous. Aval mah e'eseh? Right, this is the second half of the dialectic. On the one hand, it's I recognize that I'm unworthy. Aval mah e'eseh v'nafshi chashka baTorah? But I can't help myself. So that's what the vidui is here in the Ramban. Aval mah e'eseh says the Ramban v'nafshi chashka baTorah. So we recognize that phrase, the v'nafshi chashka baTorah, from the brayisa in Yevamos. It's a Bereishis Rabbah also, that Ben Azzai darshened that כל מי שאינו עוסק בפריה ורביה כאילו שופך דמים. And the chachamim say to him, נאה דורש ונאה מקיים, but you're נאה דורש ואין נאה מקיים because Ben Azzai wasn't married. So Ben Azzai says

מה אעשה ונפשי חשקה בתורה אפשר לעולם שיתקיים על ידי אחרים.

So that's the phrase the Ramban is borrowing. What's interesting is seemingly the Ramban's making a different use of it. Right, Ben Azzai's v'nafshi chashka baTorah just means that the responsibilities of marriage inevitably will to some degree encroach upon my learning and v'nafshi chashka baTorah, I can't tear myself away from the Torah. I can't separate myself from it. The Ramban's not talking about learning Torah, he's talking about teaching Torah. The Ramban just wants to learn Torah, he doesn't have to write down his chidushim on the parashas hatorah. The Ramban clearly is talking about teaching Torah, revealing Torah to others, sharing it with others. But ella mai lechoreh again it's not a question because the Ramban is just he's entitled to use a phrase in a different sense. But the emes is he actually is using it in the same sense as Ben Azzai as follows. The Rambam writes in Sefer Hamitzvos in Hamitzvah Hashlishis the mitzvah of ahavas Hashem. He says

וכבר אמרו שמצווה זו כוללת גם כן שנדרוש ונקרא האנשים כולם לעבודתו יתעלה ולהאמין בו.

It doesn't only translate into one's own complete and total and all-encompassing preoccupation with avodas Hashem but it also means to reach out to others. ונקרא האנשים כולם לעבודתו יתעלה ולהאמין בו. How is this included in the imperative of ahavas Hashem? It's a holy thing but mistameh it's a different mitzvah. How is it included, how do chazal see it in the contained within the imperative of ahavas Hashem? Vezeh says the Rambam כשתוהב אדם תשים לבך עליו ותשבחהו ותבקש האנשים לאוהבו. Lehavdil, you read a really good book. You share it. Your enthusiasm for the book. This is such an insightful book, such a good book, such an excellent book. Your appreciation, your enthusiasm, the hislavus it spills over that others should also see it, read it, appreciate it. כשתוהב אדם תשים לבך אליו ותשבחהו ותבקש האנשים לאוהבו you're going to praise him and you'll seek to get others to appreciate this also. וזה על צד המשל. That's the moshal says the Rambam.

כן כשתוהב הקל באמת כמו שהגיע לך מהשגת אמיתותו הנה אתה בלא ספק תדרוש ותקרא הכופרים והסכלים לידיעת האמת.

So basically what this Rambam tells us, he's talking in the context of ahavas Hashem, is that one's own appreciation and sharing with others is one continuum. It's one natural unbroken continuum. And parallel to that mirroring that writes the Rambam famously דלא כרב סעדיה גאון counts lilmod ulelamed is the same mitzvah. It's not two mitzvos in the minyan taryag. For the Rambam it's one mitzvah because that it's one continuum. There's no such thing as a lilmod without a lelamed. You can't the lelamed is the natural extension, the natural carryover, the natural culmination of the lilmod. So memaleh the emes is Ramban's not really making a different use of the nafsho chashka batorah than Ben Azzai. It's the same nafsho chashka batorah. You have a nafsho chashka batorah then avada Ben Azzai's nafsho chashka batorah was not just to learn but was to teach also, to teach also. That's the Ramban's ונפשי ונפשי חשקה בתורה. So that's the dialectic that on the one hand נפשי יודעת מאוד ידיעה ברורה his unworthiness

אבל מאוסה ונפשי חשקה בתורה והיה בלבי כאש אוכלת בוערת בכליותיי עצור.

It's a burning fire within me. This this desire is a burning fire that it was being held back but can't be held back. Lotzeis be'ikvei harishonim to follow in the footsteps of the rishonim

אריות שבחבורה גאוני הדורות בעלי גבורה להיכנס עמהם בעובי הקורה.

To even engage them in intergenerational discussion and debate. Lichtov kohem to follow in their footsteps, to write שיטים בכתבים ובמדרשים במצוות ואגדה. Some of what the Ramban does in the peirush al hatorah is he says peshat na passuk. Sometimes the Ramban in the peirush al hatorah is illuminating a very terse and cryptic Midrash Chazal. Sometimes the Ramban tells us ta'amei mitzvos. He explains to us what a mitzvah is about. It's not so much the textual analysis as it is what the mitzvah's about. And sometimes the Ramban says and I quote aggadeta and try to shed light on that. Arucha bakol ushmura. It's interesting to compare the Ramban's hakdama here to the peirush al hatorah. This the Ramban wrote l'iziknusoh. This was later in his life, I think when he was already in Eretz Yisrael the Ramban wrote the peirush al hatorah. The other works we have from the Ramban were written earlier in life. So it's interesting to compare it to his hakdama to the milchamos. I'm beginning around three and a half lines into the hakdama to the milchamos.

ואחרי הודות את השם הנכבד והנורא הזה בכל לב ובכל נפש ובכל כח ובכל מאד ושאילת חפץ רצון ממנו.

So I begin the Ramban says by giving hoda'ah to Hakadosh Baruch Hu. Then bakasha. ושאילת חפץ רצון ממנו והדריכנו בדרך ישרה that Hakadosh Baruch Hu should guide me in the milchamos b'derech yeshara. And now compare the lshonos to what we just saw in the hakdama to the peirush al hatorah. ובקשת המחילה מלפניו על שגיאות. So here too the Ramban in his extreme extreme humility also has bakashas hammechila, but it's of a totally different sort and very very different tone than in the peirush than the hakdama to the peirush al hatorah. Here the Ramban says ובקשת המחילה מלפניו על שגיאות. He says I'm not operating under the illusion that I'm perfect and mistama I'm going to say things in the milchamos which are wrong and I'm asking mechila. I'm asking mechila. Here the bakashas mechila is for the very undertaking, the enterprise. It's not for the shegi'os, right? Here the bakashas mechila is just מי אני ומה אני to be writing chiddushim al hatorah. And even the justification is a different justification, right? Here the justification basically is I have no answer to the fact that I'm unworthy other than to say אבל מה אעשה ונפשי חשקה בתורה. It goes without saying that the fact that the Ramban proceeds to write chiddushim al hatorah after confessing his lack of worthiness doesn't necessarily open the door for everyone to well I'm also unworthy so I'll confess my unworthiness and it's not quite as simple as that. So the first one to get up to speak is the Rav. So the Rav gets up to speak and he says, says the emes is, he says, I shouldn't be up here. I'm not, I'm no one to give mussar. וואס בין איך איך בין א גארנישט. What am I? I'm a nothing. And then he goes on, gives his drasha. So after the Rav finishes, then the dayan gets up. The dayan's the next one. Same thing. You know, who am I? וואס בין איך איך בין א גארנישט. And gives his drasha. After him the shochet, after the shochet in town gets up he gives his drasha. Same hakdama, same introduction. וואס בין איך איך בין א גארנישט. Finally the last speaker's going to be the gabbai, the shamash. The shamash. The shamash gets up and gives the same hakdama, וואס בין איך איך בין א גארנישט. So the Rav leans over to the dayan and whispers and says, 'Oy, noch a gornisht'. Which translates as like, 'What kind of gornisht is he?' So there are different levels of, there are different levels of unworthiness here. So this doesn't necessarily provide a carte blanche to anyone and everyone to מחדש חידושים על התורה. Al kol panim, the justification that the Ramban gives is also, again, the same way that Bakashas HaMechilah is very markedly different. So let's continue here. אמר כי התנצלותי על החיבור הזה מבואר משני פנים. My justification for writing the Milchemet. So now we're reading from the hakdama to the Milchemet. My justification for writing the Milchemet is based on the following two considerations. האחד מצד החיוב המוטל עלינו לחפש בענייני התורה והמצוות. There's a mitzvah Talmud Torah. A person can't allow the prospect of erring to paralyze him that he doesn't learn. I'm not going to open the Gemara because why? Because I may learn p'shat the wrong way. So obviously one can't, that sense of the sensitivity and the tremendous sense of achrayus to learn Torah l'amito can't be allowed to paralyze a person. It can't be that that results in a person not learning and also not teaching.

האחד מצד החיוב המוטל עלינו לחפש בענייני התורה והמצוות ולהוציא לאור תעלומות מצפונים ושאין אנו רשאי להתעצל בידיעתה ולהתרשל בלימודה.

And what's more, we're also not allowed, again, this is the Ramban talking. This is not us talking. ולא לירא אדם בהוראותיה ומשפטיה. And what's more, we can't be intimidated. The person has to, the Ramban is mechuyav to speak the truth of Torah as he understands it.

כמו שכתב לא תגורו מפני איש וכאשר בא ביאור הכתוב הזה ויתר הכתובים הדומים לו בדברי חכמי ישראל ז"ל.

So that's the first justification is the chiyuv Talmud Torah. The second,

והשני כי אין הספר הזה ברוב דבריו מחדש דברים שלא נאמרו.

The Milchemet isn't chiddushim. Contrast that with the opening line here of לכתוב חידושים בפירושי התורה. He says, I don't, most of what you'll find in the Milchemet I think are not chiddushim. Adaraba. My whole point is I'm defending the Rif. So I'm not pioneering new approaches. The Milchemet was intended to defend the Rif.

והשני כי אין הספר הזה ברוב דבריו מחדש דברים שלא נאמרו עד היום הזה כדי שיהיה ברצון אדם לתלות בנו אומץ לב.

No, this isn't me. רק הוא מבאר דברי הקדמונים. I'm explaining the words of my predecessors, because of that of the Rif. So it's quite clear from the comparing the two hakdamos that the Ramban is saying. To write in a certain sense to write a perush al hatorah is the most intimidating and awesome task or endeavor that there possibly is because a person is presuming to say that these words Hakadosh Baruch Hu said, this is what he means. He's not saying what the Rif's havana was; as great as the Rif was, he's not Hakadosh Baruch Hu. And that's the dialectic here, but even here you do have the hisnaslus of אמר אעשה ונפשי חשקה בתורה, and it's supposed to be that way, it's supposed to be nafshi chashka batorah. Ramban continues veosim lemeor panai, those who will enlighten me, neros hamenora hatehora. Who are the neros hamenora hatehora? So it's perushei Rabbeinu Shlomo, Rashi, עטרת צבי וצפירת תפארה, מוכתר בנימוסו במקרא במשנה ובגמרא. Lo mishpat habechora. The Ramban gives us his assessment that Rashi is the preeminent mefaresh. You can't learn Chumash without beginning with Rashi. Lo mishpat habechora. The way his perush is crowned, or the way he's crowned in incorporating into his perush mikra mishna uvagemara. Bidvarav ehegeh, I'll reflect on his words, right, Hegyon libbi, it means to think deeply, to reflect. Veahavasam eshgeh, I'll be immersed in love of his words, ועמנו יהיה לנו משא ומתן דרישה וחקירה. Again, there will be this intergenerational discussion, debate, and yeah, drisha vachakira, I'll hold his feet to the fire also. I'll be doresh vechoker, I'll question, I'll question what he says also. בפשוטו ומדרשו וכל אגדה בצורה אשר בפירושיו זכורה about all of his pshatim, the midrashim he quotes. So he's one of the two neros hamenora hatehora whom the Ramban is mischashav in before. Basically, what the Ramban is saying, you can't advance a different pshat, you can't advance a different pshat without first giving Rashi his due, without reflecting long and hard on Rashi's pshat. ואם אבי אברהם בן עזרא, the Ibn Ezra, תהיה לנו תוכחת מגולה ואהבה מסותרה. Right, openly you'll see me asking kashas and as it were rebuking him, but that comes from an underlying ahava. They tell the story that there was a certain Rav in Yerushalayim who was osek a lot in inyanei kodshim. So he used to go into a Velvel and tell him his chiddushim. And sometimes the Velvel would just sit there passively and just listen and not react, and sometimes he'd argue with him. And no, it's against a Tosfos, against a Rambam, against a Gemara. Vayihi litkufas hayamim, so this Rav published a sefer. So all the shtiklach torah where Velvel didn't say anything, so he published those shtiklach torah, and where Velvel argued with him, so he didn't publish it. So when they brought the sefer to Velvel, Velvel said, gevalt! He said sometimes the shtiklach torah they were so off that you couldn't begin to talk about it, so I kept quiet. He said sometimes no, the shtiklach torah they were stimulating, I didn't agree with them, but they were. The Ramban says to argue with someone is the tochacha megulah is a reflection of an ahava mesuteres. If the Ramban is masig on the Ibn Ezra, it means the Ibn Ezra is worth being masig on. It means that he's a bar hachi, he's someone who's who's potent, you have to you have to contend with. In modern times, sometimes people write hasagos to be nasty, but that's a modern phenomenon. The Rishonim, when the Rishonim wrote hasagos, it was the highest order of compliment. The highest order of compliment, meaning this is someone who what he says has to be taken so seriously and and is so important that that you need to respond. Like Rav Shlomo Zalman has has a teshuva where he disagrees with a psak of Rav Moshe gave about about hatzala returning from a life-saving mission, what they're allowed to do, what they're not allowed to do. Rav Shlomo Zalman has a much more limited view than than Rav Moshe. But it's quite clear that that it's inyanei pikuach nefesh and Rav Moshe said it and Rav Shlomo Zalman disagreed. So the the disagreement is is a reflection of of deep respect. והקל אשר ממנו לבד ירא, right? That's the same theme as we saw in the hakdama to Milchamos. In that sense, the two are alike. Yatzileini miyom evra, yachsecheini, right? Chasuchim mikol cheit we say in Ata Chonantanu, right? They should be held back, they should be nimna'im.

יחשכני משגיאות ומכל חטא ועבירה וידריכנו בדרך ישרה ויפתח לנו שערי אורה ויזכנו ליום הבשורה.

Kichtiv, and he quotes he quotes these pesukim. Okay. Let's begin a little bit of the hakdama to Sefer Bereishis, bli neder, b'ezras Hashem.

משה רבינו כתב הספר הזה עם התורה כולה מפי של הקדוש ברוך הוא.

Dehainu, there is a machlokes among the meforshim about nach. Everyone agrees that כל דברי נביאים אמת. Everyone agrees that that everything in nevi'im is a thousand percent true, but there is a disagreement as follows. The Abarbanel for instance, and and in closer to our day, it was a view that was also espoused by Rav Yaakov Kamenetsky. So maybe to give a mashal for for their understanding. Let's say imagine you have an artist who paints a painting, or a composer who writes a musical score. Then an art critic writes an essay in which he interprets the painting. Or a music critic will will write an essay in which he interprets the musical score. And then you go back to the artist and the musician and you ask him what what he thinks about the review. And he says, extraordinary. The reviewer, the critic, captured everything I wanted to say, לא הוסיף ולא גרע. He didn't impute anything to me that I didn't intend, nor did he miss anything, nor did he omit anything that I did intend. So now, if we'll ask in terms of the what what's conveyed in the picture, if we'll ask, is everything in the the critic's piece, is it emes? The answer is a resounding yes. If we'll ask, whose words are they? Is it verbatim, are the words in the in the review, are they the words of the artist, of the musician, or are they the words of the critic? The answer is that they're the words of the critic, they're not the words of the artist, because the artist spoke in a non- didn't speak. The artist communicated in a non-verbal medium. So for the Abarbanel, for Rav Yaakov Kamenetsky, I mean the first half of this sefer agrees with, nevuah, nevuah, let's say chazon Yeshayahu, it's a vision. I don't know, if you look at a blackboard you see writing, you don't call that a vision, no? Nevuah is a non-verbal medium. A non-verbal medium. And then Yeshayahu HaNavi then with a 100% faithfulness and veracity translated that non-verbal medium of nevuah into words. Into words. That's the view again, which is espoused amongst others by the Abarbanel, by Rav Yaakov Kamenetsky. The Malbim, both the Abarbanel and Malbim, you can take a look in their hakdamos to Sefer Yirmiyahu. The Malbim takes very, very strong issue with that and says no, and says that Nach is also verbatim. In addition to whatever non-verbal nevuah, but then they also had a nevuah where they received the actual words to write down, חזון ישעיהו בן אמוץ. That dispute is about Nach. There's zero dispute as Rav Yaakov Kamenetsky takes pains to underscore, there's zero dispute, there's no dispute about Chamisha Chumshei Torah. Everyone agrees that Chamisha Chumshei Torah is dictation. That Moshe Rabbeinu received every word in the Torah from HaKadosh Baruch Hu, every word and that the Torah represents verbatim, Moshe Rabbeinu, we'll see in a minute the imagery that the Ramban uses.

משה רבינו כתב הספר הזה התורה כולה מפי של הקדוש ברוך הוא.

Ve-ha-karov, what seems most likely to understand, she-katvo be-Har Sinai. We'll see in a minute that be-Har Sinai l'choreh in the Ramban doesn't seem to mean on Har Sinai. Let's reserve judgment on that for a moment. כי שם נאמר לו עלה אלי ההר והיה שם. Ve-etnah lecha, what's gonna happen? What's gonna happen in Har Sinai?

ואתנה לך את לוחות האבן והתורה והמצוה אשר כתבתי להורותם.

Okay, so what do each of these words refer to? Ki luchot ha-even, you know what that means, יכלול הלוחות והמכתב. The luchos habris with what HaKadosh Baruch Hu inscribed on the luchos, klomar Aseret HaDibrot. Ve-ha-mitzvah, right, the Ramban is not going in order because Torah is the word that perhaps is a little bit ambiguous to understand. Ve-ha-mitzvah, מספר המצוות כולן עשה ולא תעשה. So what does that leave for Torah? If mitzvot are Taryag mitzvot, so what, what's included in Torah that isn't included in the word mitzvah? אם כן והתורה יכלול הסיפורים מתחילת בראשית. The Torah means the, as it were, the non-mitzvot part, the narrative in the Torah, Bereishit Bara Elokim, ויאמר ה' אל אברם לך לך מארצך. Why is that referred to as Torah? Torah means teaching, right? Torah lashon hora'ah, כי הוא מורה האנשים בדרך בעניין האמונה. So the Ramban here is clearly confronting the question in that pasuk of what do Torah and mitzvah refer to? How do you speak of mitzvah as distinct from Torah? What does Torah mean when HaKadosh Baruch Hu says I'm going to give the Torah, I'm going to give you the mitzvah, so what does each one, how do you distinguish Torah from mitzvot? So the Ramban gives his answer here, right? That Torah refers to, as it were, the non-mitzvot part of Torah, the stories, everything else in Chumash, most of Sefer Bereishit. The Rambam in his, in the hakdamah to Mishneh Torah, the Rambam has a different answer, but clearly also prompted by and addressing the same question of how do you distinguish Torah from mitzvah? The Rambam says that Torah refers to Torah Shebikthav and mitzvah zu peirusha, meaning the Torah Shebaal Peh. But also again confronting that same question of what does it mean to separate Torah from mitzvah, mitzvah from Torah. Ve-im ken, says the Ramban,

אם כן והתורה יכלול הסיפורים מתחילת בראשית כי הוא מורה האנשים בעניין בדרך בעניין האמונה.

That's a line worth thinking about. The takeaway from all the stories is emunah? And like this I think we assume that the takeaway from many stories in Chumash it teaches us something about middos. Just by way of example of illustration, so if you look at the Ramban later in Parshas Noach, so on ויחל נח איש האדמה ויטע כרם etcetera and the whole episode that ensues, so the Ramban says ונכתב ענין היין בנח. Why does the Torah recount this episode? כי יש בו אזהרה ממנו יותר מפרשת נזירות. You learn from Parshas Noach more than you learn from Parshas Nazir in the Torah, the danger of wine and intoxication. כי הצדיק תמים אשר הצדקו הציל כל העולם. This wasn't the type of guy that, not that you should do this, that if you ventured into a bar, that you would meet in a bar. This is Noach. Tzaddik tamim whose righteousness saved humanity. We're here today because of Noach. גם אותו החטיא היין. Even he was stumbled and even he got into trouble because he got intoxicated. גם אותו החטיא היין והביאו לידי בזיון וקללת זרעו. So lechora doesn't this illustrate that not all the stories in Torah are emunah? They're all there to teach. But does it really mean they're all there be'inyan ha'emunah? So maybe think about that, that's a question to think about. ובירידתו מן ההר, so when Moshe Rabbeinu came down from Har Sinai,

כתב מתחילת התורה עד סוף סיפור המשכן וגמר התורה כתב בסוף שנת הארבעים כאשר אמר לקוח את ספר התורה הזה ושמתם אותו מצד ארון ברית השם אלקיכם.

So Moshe Rabbeinu wrote the Torah in two installments. Upon coming down from Har Sinai he writes until the end of the Mishkan and then at the end of the 40 years he wrote the balance of Chumash. וזה, what I've just presented says the Ramban כדברי האומר תורה מגילה מגילה ניתנה. I'm taking sides in a machlokes Amora'im in Gittin. The Gemara in Gittin has a machlokes at the end of Hani Nizakin whether תורה מגילה מגילה ניתנה או תורה חסומה חסומה ניתנה. So megillah means, megillah is less than a sefer, right? Torah is a sefer. Megillah is less than a sefer. So תורה מגילה מגילה ניתנה means the Torah wasn't written down all at once. So the Ramban understands that תורה מגילה מגילה ניתנה means that it was written in these in two installments as opposed to אבל לדברי האומר תורה חסומה ניתנה it was written as one sealed complete document נכתב הכל בשנת הארבעים. If you take a look in Gittin it's just interesting, Rashi has a different understanding. Rashi I think has the same understanding of what Torah chasumah nitna means. He has a different understanding of what תורה מגילה מגילה ניתנה means. For the Ramban again it means he wrote it in two installments. For Rashi it means he wrote it in many, many installments. That's to say all the parshiyos we have in Vayikra, Bamidbar, Devarim as Moshe Rabbeinu was told דבר אל בני ישראל, so in Parshas Shelach he was told דבר אל בני ישראל and tell them Parshas Tzitzis. So after he did that then he sat down and he wrote that down. And then later all these parshiyos and the same thing for every parsha in Parshas Vayikra. After, at the end, he stitched together all these individual parshiyos into the Chamisheh Chumshei Torah. That's Rashi's understanding of תורה מגילה מגילה ניתנה. Okay, we'll stop here.