Rabbi Yaakov Blau

Rabbi Yaakov Blau

The Ramban’s commentary on Chumash is widely considered as an

indispensable part of any serious discussion of Chumash. Rav Aharon

Lichtenstein Z”L once said that “had the Ramban’s commentary on the

Torah had been lost, that would have been catastrophic (for the Jewish

people).1” The commentary deals with so many aspects of parshanut,

peshat, midrash, halacha, kabbala etc. that many of its components deserve

their own analysis. I would like to focus on just one and that is his

willingness to say “I do not know.” Rashi is famous for being willing to

say that often2, but the Ramban also uses a variation of לא ידעתי, לא הבינותי

and לא נתברר dozens of times3. While any attempt to categorize how he

uses it will ignore a degree of nuance, I believe that he basically uses this

expression to express four kinds of ideas. 1] Where he means that he is not

completely confident as to what the passuk means, but nevertheless he

then suggests an approach 2] Where he is questioning a midrash, rather

1 Seeking His Presence p.50. 2 See the Frisch Torah Journal Volume 3 pp.3-13 3 One could reasonably argue that each expression has its own meaning, but this article will deal with them as if they are all the same. He also uses אינו יודע a few times (Shemot 40:2 and Bamidbar 4:32) as well as לא מצאו (Bereshit 30:20 and Bamidbar 24:3). He uses variations of these expressions several times in his commentary of Shas as well, but that is beyond the scope of this article. He also occasionally uses לא נתפרש in his commentary on Chumash, but I thought that was different enough to not be included. 7

than what the passuk means 3] He is questioning or attacking an earlier

commentator 4] He knows what the passuk means, but is questioning a

detail which does not impact the overall understanding of the passuk.

Now, these categories do not break down so neatly. For someone like the

Ramban, who would only explain the halachic pars of Chumash based on

the torah sh’beal peah, one could argue that he viewed the midrashim as if

they were part of the passuk, so really the first and second category should

not be distinct for those kinds of midrashei halacha. Also, when the

Ramban questions Rashi, he often is really questioning the midrash that

Rashi is based on, so perhaps for those occasions the second and third

category are not really distinct. Nevertheless, because of the subjective

nature of how to understand when he questions Rashi, we will put any

questioning of Rashi in the third category.

The questioning category is also somewhat tricky to evaluate, because it

is often unclear if he really questioning or rather attacking in a more polite

fashion. When he uses it in regard to the Ibn Ezra (like Bereshit 23:19) or

the Rambam (like Bereshit 18:1), it is fairly clear that it is meant as an

attack. Given the high regard which all of the mefarshim held for Onkelos,

he most likely always meant those as questioning4. He uses it for Rashi

4 For a few examples, see Bereshit 14:7, Shemot 15:18, and Vayikra 16:4. 8

many, many times and it is often hard to say which way he means it. The

Ramban’s respect for Rashi is very clear5 and often Rashi is based on a

midrash, however at times the Ramban questions if Rashi’s understanding

of the midrash is correct and it would then be more of an attack than a

question.

It also unclear when the Ramban feels the need to use any sort of

expression of “I do not know” at all. He often uses expressions that convey

that any idea is his own, such as יתכן, אולי and והקרוב without the need to

express any kind of doubt. Perhaps at times he felt less confident about his

approach or perhaps he was influenced by how often his predecessors used

a similar expression6 .

Let us examine examples of each category.

On Bereshit 12:11, The Ramban wonders why Avraham was suddenly

concerned about Sarah’s beauty when they went down to Egypt, as

opposed to all of their previous travels. He questions why Aharon is

specified when any Kohen can do what is described in Shemot 30:7. On

5 See the Ramban’s introduction to his commentary and Bamidbar 32:42. 6 Rashi uses it dozens of times, as does the Radak (for example Bereshit 1:29 and Zecharya 6:3) and even occasionally the Ibn Ezra) Shemot Perush Haruch 12:40 and Nachum 1:1) and Bechor Shor (Bereshit 49:13 and Bamidbar 29:13). 9

Vayikra 5:15, he does not know why an Asham and Chatat are different

types of korbanot, if each atone for a sin. He is perplexed on Bamidbar

14:17, why the attributes of Rachum V’chanun are left out when, after the

sin of the meraklim, Moshe quotes the Divine attributes of mercy7. On

Devarim 11:4 he is puzzled as to why the passuk specifies that the armies

of Egypt at the Yam Suf were destroyed until this day. In each case, the

Ramban then gives a suggestion to resolve the issue that he raised.

When the three angels visited Avraham, the midrash says that he asked

Sarah to make three seahs for each one. The Ramban (Bereshit 18:6)

wonders why so much bread was necessary. On Shemot 21:3, he quotes

the midrash that the master of an eved ivri is responsible to supply food

for the eved’s family. The Ramban is unsure if the master is entitled to the

earnings of the eved’s wife and children during this time8. He quotes a

Michilta on Vayikra 23:7 that suggests that one might have thought that

some work for food preparation should override Shabbat, but he is unclear

7 Other examples include: Bereshit 20:12, 30:9, 35:1 and 8 and 47:9, Shemot 4:3, 9:31, 23:16, and 31:10, Vayikra 8:30 and 14:18, Bamidbar 1:45,14:17, 17:10, 22:4, 24:3, 26:57 and 30:1, Devarim 2:7. 8 There are several instances where the Ramban questions what the halacha is and what is the exact nature of a mitzva. One could reasonably consider all of these to be a separate category. However, since the Ramban treats the story sections of Chumash and the halachic sections equally, I incorporated any such query based on midrash in the midrash category and those was based on the passukim in the detail category.

as to what is meant by that. On Bamidbar 14:1, he quotes the famous

midrash that the Jews cried for nothing with the meraglim, so that night

(Tisha B’av) will be a time of crying in the future and wonders what the

textual source for the midrash is. When Devarim 21:14 says that if one

does not marry a yefat toar, she must be sent to be on her own, the Sifrei

adds “but not to her father’s house.” The Ramban is uncertain as what

those parameters are exactly9 .

On Bereshit 18:1, the Rambam feels that the angels did not actually visit

Avraham, as angels cannot be perceived in the physical world, but rather

the entire story was a prophetic vision. The Ramban states that following

that line of reasoning also led the Rambam to the conclusion that Yaakov

did not fight with an angel either. The Ramban says that he does not know

why then would Yaakov be limping when he woke up? The Targum on

Shemot 21:29, when the passuk says that if an animal kills a person, the

animal is stoned and the owner is killed, translates “killed’ for the owner

in a way that implies that beit din executes him. The Ramban says he does

not know why the Targum does this, since the passuk means death by the

hands of Hashem. He then suggests a few explanations for the Targum.

9 Other examples include: Shemot 9:12, 21:16 and 40:2, Vayikra 1:4, and 23:15 and 24, Bamidbar 31:6.

Vayikra 26:11 states that Hashem will put his mishkan among us and not

reject us. Rashi explains that Hashem’s spirit will not be repulsed by us,

but the Ramban says that he does not understand the reasoning that we

should serve Hashem just so that He will not be repulsed? He then gives a

kabbalistic interpretation. When Moshe complains about needing to

provide meat for all the people on Bamidbar 11:15, he says “if You will

do this to me,” using the feminine את for You. Rashi explains that Moshe

became weakened, but the Ramban says that he does not understand this,

since the feminine word refers to Hashem in the passuk. Instead, he offers

a kabbalistic understanding. Devarim 16:22 commands us not to make a

matzava. Rashi says that it was loved originally, but then become an

idolatrous practice. The Ramban says that he does not know why this

should be true about a matzava, but not a mizbeach. He suggests an answer

before offering a different approach10 .

When discussing the rate of the waters of the Mabul receding (Bereshit

8:5), The Ramban concedes that we do not know exactly how much they

10 Other examples include: Bereshit 14:7, 23:19, 30:20, 32:11, 34:7, 35:18, 36:43,38:5 and11, 42:1, 46:29 and 48:7, Shemot 12:16 and 45, 16:18 and 27, 19:1, 21:16, 24:5, 25:9,12 and 29, 26:24, 28:31 and 41, 30:34, 38:8 and 40:27, Vayikra 6:4, 7:16, 12:2, 16:4, 18:17, 19:27, 22:16, Bamidbar 1:3, 4:32, 8:2 and 24, 15:38, 17:2, 18:10, 21:9, and 25:5 and Devarim 1:4 and 12, 16:18,22:22 and 26:3 and 14.

went down each day. This does not have a meaningful impact on

understanding the passukim. Similarly, on 38:8, he says that we do not

know if the practice of someone in the family marrying a widow

(expanded yibum) preceded Yehuda or if he initiated it with Tamar.

Vayikra 8:30 says that Moshe took oil and blood and sprinkled it, but the

Ramban says that he does not know if they were mixed together or not.

When discussing, in Devarim 2:23, how the Avim were exiled and

returned to their land, the Ramban says that we do not know when that

happened11 .

The ability of someone of the Ramban’s stature to be able to admit that he

does not know something is a lesson for all of us to strive to emulate. Being

willing to admit when we do not know is not a sign of weakness, rather it

is a sign of strength.

11 Other examples include: Shemot 29:31, Bamidbar 4:16 and Devarim 16:11. 13