<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<br>
<br>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1">
<meta name="ProgId" content="Word.Document">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 10">
<meta name="Originator" content="Microsoft Word 10">
<link rel="File-List"
href="file:///C:%5CDOCUME%7E1%5CBOBBY%5CLOCALS%7E1%5CTemp%5Cmsohtml1%5C01%5Cclip_filelist.xml">
<o:smarttagtype
namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="date"></o:smarttagtype><o:smarttagtype
namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="time"></o:smarttagtype><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:SnapToGridInCell/>
<w:WrapTextWithPunct/>
<w:UseAsianBreakRules/>
</w:Compatibility>
<w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel>
</w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if !mso]><object
classid="clsid:38481807-CA0E-42D2-BF39-B33AF135CC4D" id=ieooui></object>
<style>
st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) }
</style>
<![endif]-->
<style>
<!--
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{mso-style-parent:"";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-language:AR-SA;}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;
mso-header-margin:.5in;
mso-footer-margin:.5in;
mso-paper-source:0;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</style><!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
</style>
<![endif]--><span
style="color: black;"></span><span style="color: black;">Ramban and
Chazal—Bilaam<o:p></o:p></span>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style="color: black;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style="color: black;">The Ramban
(B’Midbar </span><st1:time minute="20" hour="22"><span
style="color: black;">22:20</span></st1:time><span
style="color: black;">) quotes the Ibn Ezra’s commentary explaining
Hashem’s
original instruction to Bilaam not to go to Balak, and His subsequent
reversal,
telling him to go. The Ibn Ezra says it is akin to Hashem’s
acquiescence when
the Bnei Yisroel asked to have men spy the </span><st1:place><st1:placetype><span
style="color: black;">Land</span></st1:placetype><span
style="color: black;"> of </span><st1:placename><span
style="color: black;">Canaan</span></st1:placename></st1:place><span
style="color: black;">, despite the fact Hashem has already guaranteed
their
success in conquering it. The Ibn Ezra explains that once one refuses
to follow
Hashem’s original instruction, Hashem instructs one to act in
accordance with
his choice.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style="color: black;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style="color: black;">In both
cases—that of the spies
and that of Bilaam—the Ramban denies that the explanation could be
“that G-d would
reverse His word because of a person’s stubbornness.” And he further
objects to
the idea that Hashem would then punish anyone for following through
with what
He had given him permission to do, as is what happened in both cases.
The
Ramban says “<i>Challilah</i>” to this idea.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style="color: black;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><b><span style="color: black;">At this
point, the Ramban inserts:
And they say in a Midrash that in the way a person wants to go, in it “<i>moleechin
oso</i>.” –which apparently supports the Ibn Ezra’s thesis: That once a
person
chooses a certain path despite Hashem’s disapproval, Hashem accomodates
him to
follow that way.<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><b><span style="color: black;"><o:p> </o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><b><span style="color: black;">The
Ramban, however, does not
retract his position. In fact, he goes on to expound his explanation
opposing
the Ibn Ezra’s thesis—and ostensibly opposing the Chazal he cited,
offering no
alternate one.<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><b><span style="color: black;"><o:p> </o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style="color: black;">The apparent
opposition alone is
a problem, considering the Ramban’s usual use of Chazal as
authoritative, both
as support for himself and as basis for fierce rejection of other
views—repeatedly
some of Ibn Ezra’s!<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style="color: black;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style="color: black;">But
furthermore, Ramban’s <span style=""> </span><u>placement</u> of the
Midrashic citation in
his presentation is incomprehensible. The sequence does not flow: One
would
expect that citation of Chazal to appear either before or after the Ibn
Ezra’s
explanation, to show support; or after the Ramban concludes his
explanation, as
a concession to the Ibn Ezra (which is indeed the way commentators on
the
Ramban explain it—although they fail to explain why the Ramban then
continues
to discredit the idea promulgated by the Ibn Ezra and ostensibly the
Chazal). Instead,
after citing the Midrash, the Ramban then goes on to expound upon his
opposing explanation.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style="color: black;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.5in;"><span
style="color: black;">(The Ramban explains that in
the matter of the spies, the people’s innocent and valid intention was
to plan
the conquest strategy; and he explains that Bilaam as well was acting
quite appropriately,
declaring that nothing could absolve him from following G-d’s orders,
and seeking
G-d’s advice as to how to respond to the second contingent Balak sent
him. And
Hashem’s instructions were consistent: From beginning to end, He did
not want
Bilaam to curse the Israelites; but He absolutely did want Bilaam to
accompany
the second contingent—if they would desist from the demand that he
curse the Israelites—to
bless the Israelites. Bilaam’s sin was that when he reported G-d’s
message to
Balak’s men, he suppressed the qualification G-d gave him, and created
the false
impression that G-d acquiesced to cursing the Israelites, and the
blasphemous idea
that G-d changes His mind and decides one day to keep the Israelites
from being
cursed, and decides the next to allow it.)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.5in;"><span
style="color: black;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style="color: black;">Now, often
the Ramban holds that
the <i>peshat</i> of a passage does not follow the Chazal, and that
the Chazal knew
this, but were merely using this passage as a literary device upon
which to peg
their teaching—the teaching with which the Ramban of course agrees. But
here,
the Ramban has strongly objected to the teaching itself—without
offering an
alternate Chazal in his support!<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.5in;"><span
style="color: black;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style="color: black;">By my use of
the words
“apparently” and “ostensibly,” you may already have an idea where I’m
heading.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style="color: black;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><b><span style="color: black;">The reason
we see a
disconnect between the <i>Chazal</i> and the Ramban’s placement of it
in his
commentary, is that—influenced by Rashi and popular usage—we think the <i>Chazal</i>
is saying what the Ibn Ezra holds</span></b><span style="color: black;">.
But the
Ramban, I propose, does not understand the <i>Chazal </i>that way. He
understands it the way the Meiri (<i>Makkos</i> 10b) does: simply that
G-d
grants us free will. The fact that G-d did not simply make Bilaam
unable to get
up in the morning, but gave him instructions—to refrain from cursing
Israel,
and to commit to blessing Israel—shows that G-d allows people even with
the
worst of intentions to exercise their free will. “<i>molichin oso</i>”
should
not be translated, “they lead him,” but “they give him the ability to
go.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style="color: black;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style="color: black;">The Ramban’s
citation of the
Chazal is not a support of the Ibn Ezra, but an introduction to his own
explanation.
One can entertain the possibility that the Ramban introduced it knowing
that the
Ibn Ezra took it the way he did. But regardless, he cites it as a
support for his
own opposing understanding based, he believes, on a more reasonable
theology. In
effect, he is saying, “Now, there is a Chazal that sheds light on how
to
understand these passages. Do not take it as the Ibn Ezra does; the
correct
understanding of it is as follows…”</span></p>
<br>
Zvi Lampel<br>
<span style="color: black;"><o:p></o:p></span>
</body>
</html>