Debunking a Parshas Nitzavim Myth
By Rabbi Yair Hoffman
for the Five Towns Jewish Times
There are a number of Seforim on the weekly portion of
Nitzavim that cite a story in the “Kav HaYashar” regarding the words of the
Ramban on Dvarim (29:17), “Ki Mishoresh Matok lo yetzeh mar – from a sweet
root, something bitter will not be produced.”
The book “Kav HaYashar” was first printed in Frankfurt,
Germany by Rav Tzvi Hersh Keidenower in 1705.
Rav Keidenower was the son-in-law of the Shach’s brother and authored a
remarkable commentary on Mussar and Chumash.
Although it is a well respected Sefer, in this book, the author puts
forth an extraordinary claim (Chapter 81 in some editions), regarding a story that
he had heard of one of the sons of the Ramban.
The story, in essence, has the Pope (presumably Clement the
IV) having just read a comment from the Ramban’s recently printed commentary
that if a son of a Jew adopted another religion it is a proof that he was never
from Jewish lineage in the first place, sent a message to the Ramban. The message stated that since the Ramban’s
own son had just converted to Christianity, his interpretation was wrong. The Kav HaYashar continues that the Ramban
was quite saddened until his wife revealed to him that long ago she was
attacked by a nobleman on the way to immerse in a faraway place and this
particular child was from that encounter.
As proof she produced the nobleman’s severed finger which she had bitten
off.
The Ramban told the Pope what had happened and the Pope
brought the nobleman to see his hand.
Sure enough after the glove was removed from the nobleman’s hand, the
finger was missing. The Ramban felt that
his interpretation was thus exonerated.
The story is cited by a number of more contemporary figures
other than the Kav HaYashar, including Rav Menashe Klein. Notwithstanding the citations, it is this
author’s view that the story is apocryphal.
There are no less than eight different reasons for this conclusion:
1.
The story is filled with
anachronisms. There was no printing
press in the time of the Ramban. The
story uses the term “Dfus” which indicates that there was an actual physical
press and also indicates that the Ramban’s work was printed. This was not the case.
2.
The Ramban’s three sons,
Shlomo, Nachman, and Yehuda are known and had Jewish descendents or
interactions. Shlomo had children and
the Ramban wrote that they should rather name him after the maternal
grandmother and not after him. Nachman
was the recipient of letters from the Ramban and authored commentaries. Yehuda is cited It is possible that there was
a fourth son, Yoseph, but the record shows that he maintained his Judaism, when
he is mentioned. No histories indicate
one iota that there was a descendant of
the Ramban or his wife who became Catholic.
Also, this is the type of information that would be spread and cannot be
kept hidden. The Dominicans, antagonists
of the Ramban, would certainly have spread it as certainly as they defamed the
Ramban in regard to matters of the disputation.
3.
Pope Clement IV was never
in Aragon, where the Ramban lived. He
lived in Viterbo 50 miles north of Rome throughout his entire pontificate. There is no known personal interaction
between the Ramban and Pope Clement IV.
The Pope did extend a ban on the Ramban returning to Aragon, but that
was by proxy
4.
5. [...] See Five Towns Jewish Times for full article
8.
The author can be reached at
yairhoffman2@gmail.com