Commentators:R. Moshe b. Nachman (Ramban, Nachmanides)/0

R. Moshe b. Nachman (Ramban, Nachmanides)

This page is a stub.
Please contact us if you would like to assist in its development.

Ramban

Name	R. Moshe b. Nachman, Nachmanides ר' משה בן נחמן, רמב"ן
Dates	c. 1194 – c. 1270
Location	Catalonia / Israel
Works	Bible, Talmud, Halakhah
Exegetical Characteristics	Peshat, Rabbinic analysis, mystical, broad scope
Influenced by	Rashi, Ibn Ezra, R. Yosef Bekhor Shor, Radak
Impacted on	Raah, Rashba, R. Bachya, Tur, Ran, Seforno, Ma'asei Hashem

Background

Life

• Name
  • Hebrew name – R. Moshe b. Nachman (ר' משה בן נחמן), of which Ramban (רמב"ן) is an acronym.¹
  • Catalan name – Bonastrug ca Porta.²
• Dates – c.1194³ – c.1270.⁴
• Location – Ramban apparently lived most of his life in Gerona.⁵ At the end of his life he immigrated to Israel and spent time in Akko⁶ and Yerushalayim.⁷
• Time period
  • Most of Ramban's life overlapped with the reign of King James I of Aragon (1213–1276).⁸
  • Ramban played an important role in the second Maimonidean Controversy of the 1230s.⁹
  • Ramban mounted a spirited defense of Judaism in the Barcelona Disputation of 1263.¹⁰
• Occupation – In addition to his various communal and teaching responsibilities, Ramban was also a practicing physician.¹¹
• Family – Ramban was a descendant of R. Yitzchak b. Reuven of Barcelona.¹² His first cousin was R. Yonah b. Avraham Gerondi,¹³ and Ramban's son, R. Nachman, married R. Yonah's daughter.¹⁴
• Teachers – Ramban studied under R. Yehuda b. Yakar¹⁵ and R. Natan b. Meir,¹⁶ both of whom were students of the famed Tosafist R. Yitzchak b. Avraham.¹⁷
• Contemporaries – R. Meir HaLevi Abulafia (Ramah),¹⁸ R. Shemuel HaSardi,¹⁹ R. Shelomo of Montpelier,²⁰ R. Yonah Gerondi.²¹
• Students – R. Aharon HaLevi (Raah), Rashba, R. David Bonafed, R. Yitzchak Carcosa, Ramban's son R. Nachman.

Works

• Biblical commentaries – Ramban wrote commentaries on the Torah and on the book of Iyyov.²²
• Rabbinics – Ramban's prolific writing in this area can be divided into a few categories:
  • Talmudic novellae – Collections of expositions on most of the tractates in the first four sections of the Talmud Bavli, as well as Chullin and Niddah.²³
  • Halakhic codes – Compendia of the laws of Nedarim, Bekhorot, Niddah, and Challah; Torat HaAdam (on the laws of mourning), Mishpat HaCherem (on the laws of excommunication).
  • Responses to the works of others – Milchamot Hashem,²⁴ Sefer HaZekhut,²⁵ Glosses on the Rambam's Sefer HaMitzvot,²⁶ Hilkhot Lulav,²⁷ Hasagot on Sefer HaTzava.²⁸
  • Teshuvot – C. Chavel collected and published Ramban's responsa from manuscripts and citations in various medieval works.
• Jewish thought – Sefer HaVikuach,²⁹ Derashat Torat Hashem Temimah,³⁰ Sefer HaGeulah, Shaar HaGemul,³¹ and possibly Iggeret HaMusar.³²
• Commonly misattributed to Ramban – Commentary to Shir HaShirim,³³ Iggeret HaKodesh,³⁴ Sefer HaEmunah veHaBitachon.³⁵

Torah Commentary

Textual Issues

• Manuscripts – Over 35 complete manuscripts are extant,³⁶ and a few dozen others contain individual chumashim or fragments of the commentary.³⁷
• Printings – Ramban's commentary was first printed in Rome c. 1470.³⁸ A number of annotated editions have appeared in the last half-century,³⁹ with C. Chavel's edition being the most well known and commonplace.⁴⁰ Click for a table of some of the missing text in Chavel's edition.
• Long and short commentaries – The existence of both long and short versions of Ramban's Torah commentary was noted already by R. David HaKochavi in his Sefer HaBattim (c. 1300). In addition to the well known longer Commentary on the Torah of Ramban, there are also over thirty extant manuscripts of an abridged version of the Commentary.⁴¹ This "Short Commentary" collects all of the Kabbalistic interpretations of Ramban found in the longer commentary.⁴²
• The writing process – It is unclear when Ramban began to author his commentary,⁴³ but it is clear that he continued to update it until the very end of his life. This is indicated by explicit remarks of Ramban himself in his commentary⁴⁴ and by lists containing some of these updates which Ramban sent from Israel to Spain.⁴⁵ The various lists contain only a portion of these additions, and many more can be found by a comparative analysis of the various manuscripts and other textual witnesses of the commentary.⁴⁶ All together, these total over 270 additions and changes. Click to view an interactive table and analysis of these updates.
• Ramban's later updates⁴⁷ – Ramban's additions and changes to his commentary from his later years in Israel reflect the influence of several factors, as can be seen in the interactive table. The two most prominent ones are:
  • Newly obtained first-hand knowledge of the geography of the land of Israel – This is reflected in many of Ramban's changes to his commentary.⁴⁸
  • Expanded library of previously unavailable sources and texts:⁴⁹
    • Northern French exegesis⁵⁰ – R. Yosef Bekhor Shor,⁵¹ "Chakhmei HaZarefatim",⁵² Chizkuni.⁵³
    • Exegesis from Islamic lands – R. Chananel's Torah Commentary,⁵⁴ R. Nissim Gaon.⁵⁵
    • Works from Israel and Byzantium and more – Targum Yerushalmi,⁵⁶ Talmud Yerushalmi,⁵⁷ Midrash Mishlei,⁵⁸ Lekach Tov,⁵⁹ Sifrei HaNisyonot,⁶⁰ and Sefer HaLevanah.⁶¹
  • Other noteworthy features – Ramban's additions also contain most of his lengthy discussions on passages from Neviim.⁶²
  • Very limited presence in the additions – the vast majority of both Ramban's Kabbalistic interpretations⁶³ and his interpretations which are influenced by Radak are present already in the earlier layer of the commentary.

Characteristics

• Broad scope – One of the most salient features of Ramban's commentary is its broad scope view of the text. Ramban looks at Torah with a wide angle lens,⁶⁴ viewing it in its entirety even when focusing on one small part. Torah is one integrated unit, each part of which bears on the others.⁶⁵ 
• This is reflected in many aspects of his commentary: its topical nature,⁶⁶ its internal consistency⁶⁷ and tendency to self-reference,⁶⁸ in Ramban's incorporation of introductions to each book where he lays out the central themes of the sefer⁶⁹ and in his discussions of reasons for stories and mitzvot, which betray a recognition of their role in the larger narrative, legal unit, or even national history.⁷⁰
• This broad scope view impacts Ramban's methodology as well, as seen in: Ramban's adherence to chronological ordering,⁷¹ his sensitivity to structure,⁷² cognizance of literary and linguistic patterns (דרכי המקראות והלשון),⁷³ and his intertextual exegesis.⁷⁴ Each of these will be discussed more at length below, under "methods".
• Topical – Ramban comments on about a third of the verses in the Torah.⁷⁵ His commentary is selective in what it addresses, and is not a verse by verse commentary.⁷⁶ His discussions will often revolve around matters that relate to the story or unit as a whole and not just a word or phrase.⁷⁷ At times, too, he uses the commentary as a platform to discuss philosophical or halakhic issues in addition to exegetical ones.⁷⁸
• Multidisciplinary – Ramban's commentary combines analyses of Rabbinic interpretation (מדרש), literal interpretations (פשט), and Kabbalistic interpretations (סוד)‎.⁷⁹ This heterogeneous character was unique and may account for part of the commentary's popularity.⁸⁰
• Integration of peshat and derash – 
• Dialectic – Ramban regularly opens his analyses by surveying the exegesis of his predecessors. These alternative interpretations serve as foils for Ramban's own positions.⁸¹
• Categories of questions – Ramban, in contrast to many peshat exegetes, often discusses not just the "what" or "who" but also the "why" of Biblical narratives and laws. Thus, for instance, he discusses the reasons why narratives are included in Tanakh, the rationale behind mitzvot, and the motivations of Biblical characters.⁸² 

Methods

General – Though Ramban wrote an introduction to his commentary, it does not explicitly lay out his metholodology. Nonetheless, in mentioning that much of his work will be a dialectic with Rashi and Ibn Ezra, he perhaps betrays that his commentary will integrate the distinct methodologies of Northern France / Provence (with its emphasis on literary devices and the use of realia) and of Andalusian Spain (with its focus on language and grammar). 

• I. Intrascriptural exegesis – Ramban, under the influence of Northern French commentaries, often engages in intrascriptural exegesis, letting the text explain itself. This is manifest in several aspects of his commentary: his recognition of literary patterns (דרכי המקראות) and linguistic phenomena (דרך הלשון), and in his abundant use of Biblical parallels and prooftexts:
• Literary patterns / דרכי המקראות – Ramban has a keen literary sense and often notes literary patterns in Tanakh, explaining away seeming difficulties by noting that this is "the way of the text".⁸³ Some examples follow:
• Resumptive repetition: Ramban notes that repetition in Tanakh sometimes serves a literary purpose, indicating the resumption of a narrative after a parenthetical break.⁸⁴
• קיצר במקום א' והרחיב במקום אחר – Ramban notes that it is the way of the text to be brief in one place and lengthy in another. For example, instead of tediously repeating both a command and its fulfillment, sometimes the Torah brings one, sometimes the other.⁸⁵  Similarly, when a narrative or law is doubled or a previous story is alluded to by either the narrator or a Biblical figure, certain details might only be mentioned in one account and not the other.⁸⁶
• Names, geneology, references – Ramban notes certain patterns in the way Tanakh  relays individual's genealogies and relationships.  For example, it is the way of the text to relate a women to her brothers (Bereshit 4:22, 35:22), to order the tribes according to their mothers / maidservants (Bereshit 46:19), or to mention the name of a father when listing daughters in a geneology list (Bereshit 36:25).⁸⁷
• Literary anticipation (הקדמות) – Ramban will sometimes explain that a certain detail in a story is included only to prepare the reader for something which is to be told later.⁸⁸
• השלמת הענין – Ramban recognizes that, at times, Tanakh will veer from chronological order so as to finish a storyline. See discussion below (under: "issues of order and structure".)
• Linguistic patterns / "דרך הלשון הוא" – Often Ramban will comment on the language of the text, noting that seemingly odd linguistic or grammatical phenomena are simply "דרך הלשון". 
• Language – See Bereshit 23:1 where Ramban notes that the repetition of the word "שנה" when recounting the age of Sarah is not noteworthy (as Rashi appears to suggest), but the way of the text whenever recording ages. See, similarly, Bereshit 12:1 where he notes that the seemingly extraneous "לך" in the phrase "לך-לך" is not significant for often variations of the preposition "ל" will accompany a verb without adding any meaning.⁸⁹ 
• Grammar – See Bereshit 46:7 (that when listing the genealogy of many people, the text might refer to an individual in the plural form) Shemot 15:1 (that the future tense might refer to the past) or Shemot 24:32 (that at times there might be a change in subject mid-verse, without explicit mention). See also the discussions below regarding Tanakh's use of abridged sentences (מקרא קצר), misplaced modifiers (מקרא מסורס) and extraneous or interchanged letters.
• Use of Biblical parallels – Ramban's instrascriptural exegesis is further manifest in the many parallels and prooftexts he brings when explaining a word⁹⁰ or other difficulty in the Biblical text,⁹¹ when showing how an action reflects the realia of the Biblical period,⁹² or in his comparison of similar texts and topics.⁹³
• II. Issues of order and structure
• • אין מוקדם ומאוחר‎‎‎‎‎⁹⁴‎ – Ramban will rarely posit "אין מוקדם ומאוחר" (achronology), preferring to say that "all of Torah is in order" except where Torah explicitly states otherwise.⁹⁵ In the latter cases, he will make sure to explain the reason for the lack of order, ⁹⁶ noting that Tanakh might veer from strict chronology for literary reasons. In particular, Tanakh often delays or prepones the recording of certain details so as to finish a storyline (להשלים הענין).⁹⁷
  • Structure – Ramban, unlike most of his predecessors, speaks about both the structure of Torah as a whole and the structure of individual sections of books, explaining both why books open and close where they do⁹⁸ and why various laws or narratives are mentioned where they are and/or ordered as they are .⁹⁹ At times, too, he will comment also on the order of details in much smaller units of text.¹⁰⁰
  III. Realia – Ramban often uses realia to elucidate the text, turning to science, geography, psychology, and knowledge of human behavior or customs.
  
• Scientific knowledge – Ramban speaks of geology,¹⁰¹ meteorology,¹⁰² flora and fauna.¹⁰³ His medical background is also evident in numerous places.¹⁰⁴
• Geography – Ramban makes use of geography to explicate texts and even updated his commentary in numerous places upon arrival in Israel when he had new, more accurate geographic information.¹⁰⁵
• Psychological insights – At times, Ramban will solve an exegetical difficulty by turning to psychology and an understanding of human nature and emotions.¹⁰⁶
• Way of the world – In explaining actions of Biblical characters, Ramban often notes how these might simply reflect general patterns of human behavior.¹⁰⁷ Often, too, he will explain verses in light of customs and behavior within the Biblical period,¹⁰⁸ or apply knowledge of customs of his own era back to Tanakh.¹⁰⁹
• IV. Language and Grammar
• Word definitions – Ramban often engages in linguistic analysis by comparing a word's usage throughout Tanakh,¹¹⁰ evident by the many prooftexts he will bring to prove his point.  At times, he will also turn to cognate or other foreign languages,¹¹¹ but less often.¹¹²
• Extraneous, missing, or switched letters – Ramban notes that individual letters might be missing,¹¹³ extra¹¹⁴ or interchanged,¹¹⁵ thereby explaining otherwise difficult forms.
• מקרא קצר – Like many others, Ramban notes that sometimes Tanakh writes in a truncated style, leaving out a subject,¹¹⁶ verb,¹¹⁷ noun,¹¹⁸ predicate/ conditional clause¹¹⁹ or even entire phrases or parts of a storyline.¹²⁰
• מקרא מסורס – Ramban notes that often in Tanakh, a clause might modify not the immediately preceding one, but a different part of the verse.  Thus, for example, in Bereshit 15:13, "יָדֹעַ תֵּדַע כִּי גֵר יִהְיֶה זַרְעֲךָ בְּאֶרֶץ לֹא לָהֶם וַעֲבָדוּם וְעִנּוּ אֹתָם אַרְבַּע מֵאוֹת שָׁנָה", Ramban claims that the clause "400 years" does not refer to the length of the oppression, but to the length of exile / wandering.‎¹²¹
• V. Questioning why – In contrast to many "peshat" commentators, Ramban will often ask the question "why," attempting to understand not only what is written, but also the reasons behind both what is written and what is not.¹²²
• Reasons for Mitzvot – Ramban was a firm believer that all mitzvot have a reason and are not simply "decrees of the king."¹²³  In this, he follows Rambam,¹²⁴ writing: "וזה הענין שגזר הרב במצות שיש להם טעם מבואר הוא מאד, כי בכל אחד טעם ותועלת ותקון לאדם" (Devarim 22:6).¹²⁵ As evident in this statement, Ramban stresses that the laws were made to benefit man, not God,¹²⁶ as they instill correct behavior, good values, or recognition of Hashem,¹²⁷ or even simply provide more utilitarian benefits such as good health.¹²⁸ Given their importance, Ramban comments on the reasons for mitzvot throughout the commentary,¹²⁹ sometimes giving more than one reason for any single mitzvah.¹³⁰
• Reasons for stories – Ramban will often discuss both the reason certain details are included in the text,¹³¹ and also why an entire narrative is mentioned at all.¹³² Similarly, he might question why a certain topic is spoken about at such length or a why a certain law is repeated multiple times.¹³³ Ramban notes that narratives might teach moral lessons, demonstrate God's ways, highlight an aspect of someone's character, or explain historical progress and events.¹³⁴  One specific subset of reasons for the inclusion of stories is the concept of "מעשה אבות סימן לבנים", discussed in the next bullet.
• "כל מה שאירע לאבות סימן לבנים" – In his comments to Bereshit 11:6, Ramban lays out the principle: "all that happened to the Patriarchs are a sign for the children".¹³⁵ The idea is stated already by R. Pinechas in Bereshit Rabbah 40:6¹³⁶ and R. Yehoshua in Tanchuma Lekh Lekha 9,¹³⁷ but Ramban develops it further, repeatedly returning to the motif, and attempting to show how even some of the seemingly inconsequential acts of our forefathers foreshadow events to come.¹³⁸
• Reasons why something is missing from the text – Ramban often questions why a certain detail is missing form the text, especially if a similar detail had been provided elsewhere.¹³⁹
• Addressing character motivations – Ramban often questions the actions or speech of characters, attempting to understand their motivations.¹⁴⁰

Themes

• Learning lessons – Ramban often discusses the lessons that one can learn from Tanakh.  See above regarding the reasons behind various mitzvot, the messages to be learned from Biblical stories, and the motif "מעשה אבות סימן לבנים" and its implications for understanding history.
• Centrality of the Land of Israel – Ramban's love and regard for the land of Israel is evident throughout his commentary. He views the Land of Israel as having unique status, being "נחלת ה'", a place where Hashem's providence is stronger than elsewhere.¹⁴¹ For Ramban, the ramifications of this are manifold, and are reflected in many statements throughout the commentary: 
• Ramban distinguishes between the status of mitzvah observance in Israel and exile, claiming that mitzvot were given primarily to be observed in the land ("עיקר כל המצות ליושבים בארץ י״י.")¹⁴² Certain laws are not applicable in exile at all, while others (חובות הגוף) are obligatory, but their observance is nonetheless viewed only as preparation for when one will return to the land.¹⁴³
  
• Israel's holy status further means that it cannot tolerate certain sins¹⁴⁴ and that it holds its inhabitants to a higher standard.¹⁴⁵ Conversely, when the people do not sin, Hashem's presence there is so strong that it will be like living in the Garden of Eden (Vayikra 26:6).  For this reason, too, prophecy is limited to the land of Israel (Devarim 18:15).
• Divine providence, miracles and nature – The nature of the miraculous is a theme discussed by Ramban often though his exact stance on the balance between natural and supernatural order is somewhat unclear¹⁴⁶:
• Ramban points out¹⁴⁷ that belief in a system of reward and punishment mandates belief in continuous providence and intervention. For, if rain, health, or victory in war are contingent on Torah observance, that means that each is Divinely sent in accordance with a person's deeds, and not because of natural order. As such, these are all "hidden miracles".¹⁴⁸ This leads Ramban to conclude: "אין לאדם חלק בתורת משה רבינו עד שנאמין בכל דברינו ומקרינו שכלם נסים אין בהם טבע ומנהגו של עולם."‎¹⁴⁹
• At the same time, elsewhere in his commentary,¹⁵⁰ Ramban asserts that the world is generally run by nature. Hashem's providence, for the most part, is evident only over the collective who are judged according to the deeds of the majority. It extends to the individual only in two exceptional cases: .if someone is totally righteous or totally wicked.¹⁵¹
• Defense / blame of the Avot – Though Ramban will sometimes justify seemingly problematic behavior of the Avot,¹⁵² he does not hesitate to blame them when he thinks this is warranted. A well known example is his faulting of Avram for his descent to Egypt and endangering of Sarah during the famine.¹⁵³
• Historical awareness – Ramban betrays a historical awareness, showing how some of the promises of Torah have been fulfilled throughout history. For example, see Vayikra 26:16 where he suggests that the curses of Sefer Vayikra refer to and match the reality of the Baylonian exile, while those of Devarim match the present one.¹⁵⁴
• Ethics outside of strict halakhah – In several places in his commentary, Ramban notes the limits of a formal legal code, which can never include every scenario, recognizing that it is possible to be a "נבל ברשות התורה".  he suggests that Torah therefore includes general principles such as "be holy" or "do what is right and just" to teach us to go further than the strict law both in the realm of interpersonal commands and those between man and God.¹⁵⁵

Sources

Significant Influences

• Earlier Sources –
• Rashi – As is evident from his introductory poem to Torah,¹⁵⁶ Ramban held Rashi in extremely high esteem, and his work sevred as a cornerstone for Ramban's own commentary. Often Ramban will open his comments with a direct quote from Rashi, or refer to his words later in the discussion, metioning "רבינו שלמה" by name over 670 times!¹⁵⁷  At times he will agree with Rashi,¹⁵⁸ sometimes adding to and developing the interpretation.¹⁵⁹ Elsewhere, Ramban might disagree, but nonetheless buttress Rashi's explanation or sources,¹⁶⁰ while in yet other cases, he will reject Rashi's explanation and explain why it is wrong.¹⁶¹ Even when disagreeing, Ramban's tone is almost always respectful.¹⁶²
• Radak
• Northern French exegetes
• Teachers – R. Ezra, R. Azriel
• Foils – Ibn Ezra

Occasional Usage

• Geonim, Ibn Janach, R. Yosef Kimchi – 
• –

Possible Relationship

• Rashbam, R. Yosef Bekhor Shor, R. Yonah – 
• –

Impact

Later Exegetes

• R. Bachya, Tur, Ran, Seforno, Ma'asei Hashem – 
• –

Supercommentaries

• Tur – 
• Recanati – 
• –

¹ The name "Nachmanides" is a Greek form which means "son of Nachman".

² From documents from the Aragon Royal Archives, one can glean that Bonastrug ca Porta was the Rabbi of Gerona c. 1260 who was accused by the Church of blasphemy. Most scholars identify him with Ramban. Coincidentally, there was an additional character Astrug ça Porta who lived in the same time period and was similarly accused of blasphemy. See the sources and discussion in R. Chazan, Barcelona and Beyond (Berkeley, 1992): 199-203, 240-242.

³ The earliest source for Ramban being born in the Hebrew year 4954 (1193/4) is R. David Gans's history work, Tzemach David (1592). Other late 15th and early 16th century sources speak of Ramban authoring some of his works already in the Hebrew years 4970-4971 (1210/11).

⁴ The precise date of Ramban's death is not known. Sefer HaYuchsin v.5 (p.221) gives a date of of 5020 (1259/60), but Ramban's debate in Barcelona was in 1263, his prayer over the ruins of Yerushalayim records his arrival there in either 1267 or 1268 (textual witnesses differ), and it is generally assumed that he lived in Israel for three years. An anonymous student of Ramban, who wrote an account of his travels in Israel which he entitled Totzeot Eretz Yisrael, writes that Ramban is buried at the Mt. Carmel cemetery, but this is debated (as Ramban writes to his son that he was preparing a grave for himself in Hevron).

⁵ It is unclear where he studied with his teachers.

⁶ See below that some manuscripts of Ramban's Commentary on the Torah contain lists of additions that Ramban sent from Akko, as well as Ramban's note (appended to many editions of his Commentary on the Torah) describing his arrival in Akko and viewing of an ancient Shekel coin. Ramban's דרשה לראש השנה was delivered at the Tosafist Yeshivah in Akko. In 1972, Ramban's seal was discovered in excavations near Akko. On the likely authenticity of the seal, see Y. Nir-El and M. Broshi, "חותם הרמב"ן - בדיקת אותנטיות", Tarbiz 65 (1996): 527-528.

⁷ See below that Ramban's addition to his commentary on Bereshit 35:16 describes his coming to Yerushalayim. In his letterRamban's Letter from Yerushalayim to his son, Nachman, Ramban describes the particularly difficult conditions in Yerushalayim and the refurbishing of a building to serve as a synagogue (there is debate over whether this is the synagogue named after Ramban which exists to this day in the Old City of Yerushalayim).

⁸ King James I's extremely long reign was characterized by relatively favorable conditions for the Jews of Aragon. His advisors included a number of Jews, and he treated Ramban with considerable respect.

⁹ See the analysis of his role in Prof. D. Berger's article "How Did Nahmanides Propose to Resolve the Maimonidean Controversy?", Meah She'arim: Studies in Medieval Jewish Spiritual Life in Memory of Isadore Twersky, ed. by Ezra Fleischer et al. (Jerusalem, 2001): 135-146.

¹⁰ Ramban's account of the debate can be found in his Sefer HaVikuach. Ramban records that in recognition of his successful efforts, King James awarded him the sum of 300 dinars, and this is corroborated by a document from the Aragon Royal Archives.

¹¹ See the Responsa of the RashbaResponsa 1:120About R. Shelomo b. Aderet that Ramban received income from this profession.

¹² As noted already by R. Shimon b. Tzemach DuranResponsum 1:72About R. Shimon b. Tzemach Duran, RambanHilkhot Nedarim 5 refers to R. Yitzchak as "אדננו הזקן".

¹³ See Responsa of R. Shelomo b. R. Shimon Duran 291.

¹⁴ Ramban had other sons and daughters to whom he refers in his דרשה לראש השנה. His אגרת מוסרIggeret Musar as well as his letter describing Yerushalayim were addressed to one of these sons, and he wrote an additional letter to a son who was active at the king's court. Some (see Kore HaDorot p.19a) have claimed that one of Ramban's daughters was the mother of Ralbag, but this is disputed.

¹⁵ See Ramban Pesachim 117bPesachim 117b and Makkot 2a, Meiri Magen Avot 1 (p. 18), Ran Ketubot 74a, Shittah Mekubetzet Bava Batra 82a.

¹⁶ See Ramban Shevuot 37a, Derashah LeRosh HaShanah, and his letter regarding R. Yonah (Kitvei Ramban 1:353).

¹⁷ According to R. Menachem Recanati (c. 1250-1310), Ramban followed R. Ezra and R. Azriel of Gerona in the chain of Kabbalistic transmission, but their precise relationship is unclear. See below for their influences on Ramban.

¹⁸ Ramban describes sending halakhic inquiries to the Ramah – see Ramban Berakhot 22b, Bava Batra 33b, and he appealed for the Ramah's intervention during the second Maimonidean Controversy (see Iggerot Kannaut 6).

¹⁹ Many of Ramban's responsa were sent to him.

²⁰ In Ramban's letter to the French scholars during the Maimonidean Controversy, he refers to R. Shelomo as "חברי".

²¹ Ramban maintained a close relationship with his cousin, R. Yonah, throughout their lives. In his Derashah LeRosh HaShanah Ramban recounts how in his youth he relayed one of his interpretations to the Tosafist academies via R. Yonah. Ramban also wrote a series of letters defending the family honor of R. Yonah.

²² We also possess Ramban's interpretation of Yeshayahu 52:13 – 53:12, written in the aftermath of the Barcelona Disputation, and a lengthy sermon on Kohelet delivered before he departed for Israel.

²³ Ramban also wrote a work on the topic of indirect damages (קונטרס דינא דגרמי) and a sermon on the laws of Rosh HaShanah (דרשה לראש השנה).

²⁴ This Talmudic based work defends the Halakhot of R. Yitzchak Alfasi (Rif) from the critique of R. Zerachya HaLevi (Ba'al HaMaor).

²⁵ A defense of R. Yitzchak Alfasi (Rif) from the critique of R. Avraham b. David (Raavad).

²⁶ This work contains a defense of the Halakhot Gedolot's enumeration of the 613 commandments.

²⁷ This is a critique of the work of the Raavad by the same name, and a defense of the positions of the Geonim and Rif.

²⁸ A defense of the Rif from the critique of the Ba'al HaMaor.

²⁹ An account of the Barcelona Disputation.

³⁰ This work was long assumed to be the sermon Ramban delivered in the aftermath of the Barcelona Disputation in response to King James' address to the congregation in the Barcelona Synagogue.  In a recent article, though, Oded Yisraeli, "מדרשת 'תורת ה' תמימה' לפירוש התורה: אבני דרך ביצירתו של הרמב"ן", Tarbiz 83:1 (5775): 163-195, argues that this Derashah was actually written before Ramban's Torah commentary.

³¹ This is the final chapter of Torat HaAdam, in which Ramban discusses various theological issues such as reward and punishment, the World to Come, and Resurrection.

³² This letter has been attributed to Ramban for many centuries (see Shelah, Shaar HaOtiyyot, 4:45), however T. Preschel, "אגרת שיוחסה בטעות לרמב"ן", Talpiyot 8:1 (1960): 49-53, pointed out that most of it contains almost verbatim parallels to the abridgment of a treatise of R. Moshe of Evreux cited in the Orchot Chayyim and Kol Bo. The parallels are so distinct (see Comparison Table) that coincidence can be ruled out. Preschel also rules out the possibility of a mistaken attribution to R. Moshe of Evreux, as a passage of this essay is cited in his name by his student R. Peretz (in a gloss on the Semak 11). Thus, Preschel concludes that the Iggeret Musar is really the work of R. Moshe of Evreux which was ascribed erroneously to Ramban. Chavel (Intro. to the Iggeret) and others disagree and contend that the attribution of the Iggeret to Ramban is correct and that he was working off the work of R. Moshe of Evreux (see further discussion below regarding Ramban's use of sources).

³³ The commentary on Shir HaShirim ascribed to Ramban was written by R. Azriel or R. Ezra of Gerona (see the evidence collected in Chavel's Introduction to the Commentary).

³⁴ This work was attributed to Ramban by R. Yisrael AlNakawa (Menorat HaMaor Vol.4, p.87), but see Chavel's introduction that it was likely written by R. Azriel of Gerona.

³⁵ Although ascribed to Ramban already by a student of the Rashba, this work was apparently written by R. Yaakov b. Sheshet of Gerona. The evidence for this can be found in Vida's introduction to R. Yaakov's Sefer Meishiv Devarim Nekhochim, pp. 18-20. See also Chavel's discussion in his introduction.

³⁶ Six of these are dated to the 14th century, while the rest are later. Ramban's later additions to his commentary (see below) are of significant value in mapping the relationship between these manuscripts.

³⁷ Many of the fragments are dated to the 13th or 14th centuries.

³⁸ It was then reprinted in Lisbon in 1489 and in Napoli in 1490.

³⁹ M. Eisenstadt began to publish an edition in 1959, based on the Lisbon printing and corrected according to various manuscripts and other printings, but he published only two volumes covering Sefer Bereshit.

⁴⁰ Chavel published the full commentary in 1959-60. Chavel's edition (later incorporated in Mosad HaRav Kook's Torat Chayyim) played a major role in the dissemination of the commentary, but its text has some deficiencies. See U. Eitam, "על נוסח פירוש רמב"ן לתורה במהדורת הרב שעוועל", Megadim 30 (1999):73-96, that Chavel's edition used as its base text a 1951 New York printing which was based on the 1860 Warsaw edition (which, in turn, was based on the 1490 Napoli edition), and that it incorporated the numerous corruptions of the text which had crept in at each previous stage as well as additional ones.

⁴¹ Many of these manuscripts are from the 14th century, and paleography experts have even dated some to the late 13th or turn of the 14th century (mere decades after Ramban's death). The large number of manuscripts attests to the popularity of this abridgment and the importance attached in Kabbalistic circles to Ramban's mystical interpretations.

⁴² While R. David HaKochavi attributes both commentaries to Ramban himself, there are indications that the shorter commentary is an abridgment made by a different person. Even according to this second possibility, it is possible that this collection was made in Ramban's own lifetime. [See below that Ramban's later addition at the end of his introduction to his commentary may reflect his awareness of the popularity of the Kabbalistic interpretations in the commentary.]

⁴³ Ramban's poetic lines at the end of Sefer Shemot, cited by C. Chavel as evidence that Ramban completed his commentary on Shemot after the age of seventy, may be a later addition to the commentary. If so, they would not prove anything regarding the primary layer of the commentary.

⁴⁴ Ramban's commentary to Bereshit 35:16 describes his change of opinion (to favor Rashi's position) as a result of his travels in Israel ("ועכשיו שזכיתי ובאתי אני לירושלים"), and the note published in many editions at the end of his Torah commentary details a similar change of opinion (also in favor of Rashi) after seeing a shekel coin in Akko. An account of this later shift and Ramban's sending a correction back to Spain is recorded also by R. Yosef AlboSefer HaIkkarim 3:16About R. Yosef Albo.

⁴⁵ These lists appear in five manuscripts, four of which were collated and published by K. Kahana, "הוספות הרמב"ן לפירושו לתורה", HaMaayan 9:1 (1968): 25-47. See also the earlier article of M.Z. Eisenstadt "מכתב הרמב"ן מארץ ישראל בענין צורת השקל ומשקלו", Talpiyot 4:3-4 (1959): 606. Regarding the differences between the nature of these lists, see the discussion in Ramban's Updates.

⁴⁶ Most of the additional cases in Bereshit can be found in M. Sabato, "הוספות רמב"ן לפירושו לתורה", Megadim 42 (2005): 61-124. The lists and analysis presented here for the entire Torah are based on the research of H. Novetsky – see note below.

⁴⁷ The lists of hosafot and the analysis presented here are based on an unpublished seminar paper by H. Novetsky, "Nahmanides' Amendments to his Commentary on the Torah", submitted (in 1997) to Prof. David Berger, and his subsequent analysis (in 2001) of the available microfilms of the Ramban manuscripts housed at the מכון לתצלומי כתבי יד of the Jewish National University Library. The paper was shared with Prof. Yisrael Ta-Shma z"l, who then shared it with Jonathan Jacobs. Cf. Jacobs's recent article "ספרים חדשים שהתגלו לרמב"ן בהגיעו לארץ ישראל", JSIJ 11 (2012).

⁴⁸ See Ramban's updates to Bereshit 11:28, 12:6, 13:7, 14:6, 14:15, 23:2, 35:16, 35:18, 48:7, Shemot 10:14, 12:2, 30:13 (see also note on Shekel at end of Torah commentary), Bemidbar 13:2, 21:18, 35:14, Devarim 8:9, 11:29.

⁴⁹ This possibility was noted already by K. Kahana (pp. 42,44) with regard to both R. Chananel (see below) and Ibn Tibbon's translation of Moreh Nevukhim.

⁵⁰ Many Tosafists and their students lived in Akko, and Ramban was in contact with them (see his Derashah on Rosh Hashanah).

⁵¹ See Ramban's additions to Bereshit 19:2, 29:9 (R"Y Bekhor Shor Bereshit 29:17), 33:10, 35:16 (R"Y Bekhor Shor Bereshit 48:7), 37:22, 42:9 (R"Y Bekhor Shor Bereshit 37:26), Vayikra 19:14, 19:17, Bemidbar 21:13-20, Devarim 11:4, 21:18-21 (see also Devarim 16:21, 21:11,12). In a number of these cases, R. Yosef Bekhor Shor's exegesis was also incorporated (almost verbatim) into Chizkuni, and it is possible that Ramban received it through this secondhand source. Either way, though, there appears to be a strong possibility that through his contact with the Tosafists in Akko, Ramban gained access to Northern French exegesis which he had not previously seen. Whether Ramban actually saw a written copy of either R. Yosef Bekhor Shor or Chizkuni or merely heard the content orally is a secondary issue.

While many of the most distinctive parallels are from Ramban's additions in Israel, there are also numerous parallels between Ramban and R"Y Bekhor Shor (as well as Chizkuni), even in passages which appear to be from the earlier Spanish portion of the commentary. See H. Novetsky, "The Influences of Rabbi Joseph Bekhor Shor and Radak on Ramban's Commentary on the Torah", (MA Thesis, BRGS, Yeshiva University, 1992).

⁵² They are cited in Ramban's additions to Vayikra 13:29 and 24:10. In the first case, the position is found in the commentary of R. Shimshon of Sens on Nega'im 10:10. This dovetails nicely with Ramban's statement in his Derashah on Rosh Hashanah, which he presented in Akko, that it was there that he viewed the Tosafot of R. Elchanan for the first time ("ועכשיו בעיר הזאת ראיתי התוספות הארוכות של הרב ר' אלחנן ז"ל"). The exegesis in Vayikra 24:10 appears also in Chizkuni.

⁵³ See note above regarding R"Y Bekhor Shor.

⁵⁴ The citations of R. Chananel in Shemot 10:14, Vayikra 20:17, 23:7, Bemidbar 16:5, 16:21, and 20:1-8 are all Eretz Yisrael additions, as noted already by K. Kahana (p. 42). Interestingly, there are no citations of R. Chananel in Bereshit or Devarim.

⁵⁵ The citation of R. Nissim in Bemidbar 8:2 is a later addition.

⁵⁶ Cited in Ramban's additions to Bereshit 14:6, 30:20 (2x), Shemot 28:41, Bemidbar 11:28, Devarim 8:9, 33:25. Ramban's citation of the Targum Yerushalmi in Vayikra 19:20 comes via Radak, and Bemidbar 24:1 is not a direct citation. This leaves Bereshit 1:1 as the only citation in the original layer of the commentary. [Ramban's citation of Targum Yerushalmi in his commentary to Iyyov 33:25 likely came via the Arukh s.v. רפש.] That the Targum Yerushalmi was not always readily available in all lands is reflected in the responsum of R. Hai Gaon in Teshuvot HaGeonim Zikkaron LaRishonim #248 ("אין אנו יודעין תרגום ארץ ישראל מי אמרו, ואף אין אנו יודעין אותו גופו ולא שמענו ממנו אלא מעט").

⁵⁷ It is clear that Ramban had access to a Talmud Yerushalmi while in Spain, however, his access there may have been more limited and he may have studied it less. Ramban's additions cite the Talmud Yerushalmi numerous times: see Bereshit 34:13 (this citation refers to a version of the Talmud Yerushalmi different than ours), 40:16, 49:10, 49:19, Shemot 31:13, Bemidbar 4:16, 25:5, Devarim 2:23, 10:1, 20:8, 26:2, and the concluding comment at the end of the Torah.

⁵⁸ Ramban cites this work only once, in his addition at the very end of his commentary.

⁵⁹ Ramban's additions to Bereshit 11:32 and Devarim 15:1 match the Lekach Tov almost word for word. See also the parallel in the addition to Shemot 32:27.

⁶⁰ Cited in Ramban's addition to Vayikra 11:13.

⁶¹ Cited in Ramban's addition to Devarim 18:9.

⁶² See the additions in Bereshit 19:8, 49:10, Vayikra 27:29, Bemidbar 1:3, 16:21, 26:54. The exceptions which appear to be present already in the earlier layer of the commentary are: Shemot 20:23, Vayikra 27:29 (part), Bemidbar 32:33, Devarim 20:11.

⁶³ Some of the rare exceptions are: Bereshit 15:17, 49:33, Shemot 20:13, Devarim 18:9. Ramban's addition at the end of his introduction, in which he warns the uninitiated reader not to delve into his mystical interpretations, may be a reaction to the popularity of that layer of his commentary already in Ramban's lifetime, or possibly to the dissemination during Ramban's lifetime of the "Peirush HaKatzar" (see above).

⁶⁴ In this he stands in contrast to exegetes like Rashi and Ibn Ezra who are much more local in their approach.

⁶⁵ It should be noted that this broad view does not mean that Ramban had no eye for details.  He often addresses the minutia of the text as well. For several examples where he notes seemingly unnecessary details and explains their significance to the narrative, see: Ramban Bereshit 28:5, 29:9, 30:5, 32:5, 14, 34:1, 37:14, 39:8. Elsewhere he might address at length the meaning or etymology of a single word. See, for example, Bereshit 7:18, Bereshit 23:2, or Vayikra 23:40.

⁶⁶ See discussion below, how Ramban will often comment on an entire unit of text rather than a single verse or phrase.

⁶⁷ For a few examples, compare his explanations to Bereshit 17:18 and 23:13, Bereshit 32:6 and 33:8, Bemidbar 21:21 and Devarim 2:24, Vayikra 17:11 and Devarim 12:22, or Devarim 1:1 and 4:41.Ramban is not only internally consistent within his Torah commentary, but across his various works.  That this was important to him can be seen in the fact that he notes when Rashi is not similarly consistent, explaining against a different text.  See Shemot 12:19, Vayikra 7:15, and Devarim 2:10.

⁶⁸ This self-referential tendency is evident in the over 100 times he writes "כאשר פרשתי", about 60 times he writes , "כבר פרשתי",  and around 30 times he says "כאשר הזכרתי".  In about ten more cases he writes, "כאשר אפרש", referring to something he is to explain later in the commentary. For a few examples, see Bereshit 1:31, 15:12, Shemot 3:9, 18:3-4, Vayikra 14:2, 21:6, Bemidbar 3:45, 23:23, and Devarim 12:28.

⁶⁹ Ramban writes introductions to each book in Torah. These betray a recognition of each book's unique character and themes, highlighting how Ramban thought about books in their entirety and not only about the meaning of individual verses. For elaboration, see below.

⁷⁰ Ramban questions both the reason for the inclusion of specific details, the amount of press space devoted to a story, its location, and also the very inclusion of the narrative at all. In this he is preceded by Radak who also often explains why stories are included in Tanakh and what lessons might be learned from them.  After Ramban, Ralbag takes the idea even further, devoting an entire section of his commentary to "תועלות", the lessons (in the realm of character, beliefs, or law)  learned from the narratives and laws of Tanakh.

⁷¹ See the discussion below regarding his hesitancy to posit "אין מוקדם ומאוחר", with many examples. This attitude is a natural outgrowth of his broad scope view. If one who is looking at the entirety of Tanakh, the need for chronological order is much more imperative than for one who is dealing only with local issues. It is thus not surprising that Ramban here stands in contrast to Ibn Ezra, who is both very atomistic in his outlook and very open to suggesting achronology.

⁷² See below that Ramban will often explain why the text is ordered as it is, attempting to explain why certain laws / narratives are found in one chapter or one book rather than another. This, too, is a direct outgrowth of thinking about Torah from a wide angle perspective.

⁷³ Recognition of "דרכי המקראות" necessitates thinking about the text as one integrated unit for otherwise one cannot detect such patterns and stylistic phenomena. See below for discussion and examples.

⁷⁴ Ramban often interprets one text in light of another, calling on another verse as a prooftext to explain a word, elucidate a character's motives, or simply understand the realia of the Biblical period. He will also often discuss the relationship between doubled narratives or laws. for examples and further discussion, see below.

⁷⁵ There are approximately 5845 verses in the Torah (see Number of Verses in Torah for a fuller discussion of this subject): 1534 in Bereshit, 1209 in Shemot, 859 in Vayikra, 1288 in Bemidbar, and 955 in Devarim. Ramban comments on approximately 1710 units: 547 in Bereshit, 390 in Shemot, 242 in Vayikra, 228 in Bemidbar, 303 in Devarim. [These figures use Chavel's edition and unit division. The exact totals depend considerably on how one tallies interpretations of Ramban which span multiple verses.] Like most exegetes, Ramban comments less often in Vayikra, Bemidbar, and Devarim, than in Bereshit and Shemot. [A more precise analysis needs to take into account factors such as genealogical lists or repeated sections. These will partially explain why Ramban's commentary on Bemidbar has a much lower percentage of verses on which he comments than that of Devarim.]

⁷⁶ Cf. Rashi, Ibn Ezra, and Radak. Partially for this reason, Ramban's comments tend to be much longer than those commentators, as he will frequently examine issues of broader scope. For a more detailed comparison table of the various exegetes, see Commentary Comparison. The relationship between Rashi and Ramban's Torah commentaries is analogous in many ways to the relationship between the Talmudic commentaries of Rashi and the Tosafists.

⁷⁷ For just several of many, many examples, see Bereshit 1:29 where he discusses not just Adam's diet, but the laws of eating meat in several eras, Bereshit 15:18 where he discusses all four of Hashem's promises of land to Avraham, and not just the one mentioned in the verse, Shemot 1:10 where he gives an overview explaining Paroh's staged plan of slavery and oppression, or Bemidbar 13:32 where he discusses the spies' slander and the nature of their sin.  One comment might include a whole array of topics - exegetical, philosophical, linguistic and legal.

⁷⁸ For example, see Bereshit 1:29 about both the laws and philosophy behind eating meat, Shemot 13:16 regarding miracles and belief,

⁷⁹ For statistical analysis, see Table.  As an example where Ramban addresses all three levels in one comment, see Vayikra 1:1 (which is explained first according to "פשט", then according to "רבותינו" and finally, "על דרך האמת").

⁸⁰ It appears that already in Ramban's lifetime and in the period after his death, the mystical portion of the commentary became very popular in Kabbalistic circles – see below.

⁸¹ This is evident already in his introductory poem to Torah, where he writes, "אשים למאור פני נרות המנורה הטהורה / פירושי רבינו שלמה עטרת צבי וצפירת תפארה... בדבריו אהגה, באהבתם אשגה, ועמהם יהיה לנו משא ומתן דרישה וחקירה... ועם ר׳ אברהם בן עזרא תהיה לנו תוכחת מגולה ואהבה מסותרה". For just a few of many examples where he engages with both commentators before expressing his own opinion, see Bereshit 2:19, 4:8, 10:9-11, 12:1, 24:64, Shemot 2:6, 14:31, 19:10,  Bemidbar 8:2, and Devarim 11:15.

⁸² See "methods" below for discussion and examples.

⁸³ In this he follows earlier Northern French peshat commentators such as Rashbam and R"Y Bekhor Shor.

⁸⁴ Thus, for examples, he claims that Shemot 1:1 repeats Bereshit 46:8 so as to resume the narrative of the earlier book and notes the similar phenomenon in Ezra 1, which recapitulates the last verse of Divrei HaYamim.  See also Vayikra 23:2, Bemidbar 5:20-21, Devarim 4:47.  Elsewhere, he claims that even repetition within a single verse might serve the same role. For examples, see Bereshit 6:9-10 (אֵלֶּה תּוֹלְדֹת / וַיּוֹלֶד) , Bereshit 46:2 (double ויאמר), Shemot 1:15-16 (double ויאמר), Shemot 4:9 (וְהָיוּ), Vayikra 27:3  (וְהָיָה עֶרְכְּךָ) and Devarim 18:6 (יָבֹא/ וּבָא). For further discussion of this methodology, see Redundancy or for an interactive module on the topic, see Resumptive Repetition.

⁸⁵ He notes this principle in Shemot 16:4, "אבל הכתוב יקצר בדברים הנכפלים בענין הצווי או בספור, כאשר הזכרתי לך פעמים רבים" and explains the reasoning in Shemot 10:2: "וסבת זה שלא ירצה להאריך בשניהם, ופעם יקצר בזה ופעם בזה".  However, he does not explain Tanakh's rationale for when it decides to only include the command, when only its fulfillment and when both.  For other examples where Ramban notes the phenomenon, see: Shemot 4:17, 4:21, 5:4, 9:18,11:1, 12:21, 32:27, 9:2, Bemidbar 16:5,  20:21, 30:2. Cf. Radak on Yehoshua 4:9, 14:9, Shemuel I 7:12 and Melakhim I 18:22 who similarly notes that at times a command must be assumed to have been given, even if not written.
See also Prophetic Actions Without Explicit Divine Sanction and Invoking Hashem's Name Without Explicit Divine Sanction for how this plays into Ramban's understanding of prophetic autonomy and whether prophets ever act on their own or is it to be assumed that even when the text is silent, they are acting under Divine command.

⁸⁶ Regarding doubled naarratives, see: Bereshit 24:45, 31:7, 41:3, 42:21, 42:34. 44:7, 21, Devarim 1:45, and 3:23.  Regarding why Torah might only recount certain aspects of a law in one place, and others elsewhere, see Devarim 15:1, 16:1, 16:4 and 16:8.

⁸⁷ See also Bereshit 10:21, 11:32, 25:6, 17, 19, 36:22,41:45, 46:19, Shemot 6:23 and 15:20.

⁸⁸ See Bereshit 24:1, 36:12, 39:6, 39:20, 47:15, Shemot 10:6, 32:6.  Ramban is more muted in his use of this methodology than some of his predecessors such as R"Y Kara or Rashbam.

⁸⁹ For some of many other examples, see Bereshit 17:18 (that Tanakh might double its language for emphasis; cf. Bereshit 23:13, 34:23, 37:2 and 37:24),  Bereshit 23:9 (that the language of "giving" is often used in the context of sales),  Shemot 12:28 and Vayikra 24:23 (that the narrator might mention the fulfillment of a command twice as a form of praise), Shemot 27:20 (that, for emphasis,Tanakh might include a pronoun even if this is understood from the verb form. Cf. Devarim 1:41), or Shemot 33:11 (that the text uses the term נער when referring to a servant (משרת)).

⁹⁰ See discussion and examples below under "word definitions".

⁹¹ The phrases "כענין שנאמר" appears close to 90 times in Ramban's Torah commentary attesting to the many places he refers a reader to another verse or story in order to elucidate the text. See also M. Levine, "Character, Characterization and Intertextuality in Nahmanides Commentary on Biblical Narrative" who attempts to show how often, when Ramban interprets one text in light of another, he is not simply explaining a local difficulty but motivating the reader to look for further connections between the two texts which often reveal deeper insights into narrative or character being dicussed.

⁹² See discussion of realia below.

⁹³ This is manifest in his discussion of topics or laws which are revisited several times in Tanakh. See, for example, Bereshit 15:18 (regarding Hashem's multiple promises to Avraham), Shemot 34:11 (on the relationship between Shemot 23 and 34), Shemot 36:8 (on the multiple discussions of the building of the Mishkan).

⁹⁴ For further discussion of Ramban's attitude towards Biblical chronology, see: י. גוטליב, "אין מוקדם ומאוחר בפירוש הרמב"ן לתורה", תרביץ סג (תשנ"ד): 41-62.

⁹⁵ By this, he means that the narrative either provides clearly achronological dates (Bemibdar 1:1 and 9:1) or that chronological data in the form of geneological lists, birth and death dates betray a lack of order. See his comments to Bemidbar 16:1 where he contrasts his and Ibn Ezra's approach to Biblical order, and states, "על דעתי כל התורה כסדר זולתי במקום אשר יפרש הכתוב ההקדמה והאיחור, וגם שם לצורך ענין ולטעם נכון".  [See his similar comments in Vayikra 16:1.]
For many examples where Ramban comes head to head with Ibn Ezra on the issue, rejecting his claims of achronology, see: Bereshit 11:32-12:1 (regarding when Hashem told Avraham to depart to Canaan), Shemot 18:1 (regarding Yitro's arrival), Shemot 32:11 (regarding Moshe's prayer after the sin of the Golden Calf),  and Bemidbar 16:1 (regarding Korach's Rebellion). See also Bereshit 24:64, Shemot 4:19, Vayikra 9:3, 25:1, Devarim 4:41, and 31:24.
See also the many cases where  Ramban argues against Chazal or Rashi on the issue: Shemot 12:40 (regarding the timing of the Covenant Between the Pieces), 24:1, 33:7, Vayikra 8:2, 14:43, and Bemidbar 10:35.

⁹⁶ In this he differs from Rashi and Ibn Ezra who will often offer no explanation at all for achronology or suggest that the non historical ordering comes to teach a moral lesson.

⁹⁷ See Vayikra 8:2, where he writes, "כי כן דרך הכתובים בכל מקום להשלים הענין אשר התחיל בו". As an example, see Bereshit 11:31 and 35:28 where he notes Tanakh's tendency to record the deaths of individuals and finish the story of their lives before proceeding to tell the story of another Biblical figure, even if the death occurred after events to be told later.  See also Bereshit 23:2 (in explaining the opinion of the Sages), Shemot 2:1, 18:12, 20:14, 32:6, Vayikra 16:1, 23, Bemidbar 8:2, 9:1-2, 21:1, 27:12 and Devarim 2:24.

⁹⁸ This is evident in his introductions to each book of Torah where he lays out the unique character and themes of the book, explaining why they include what they do. For example, he suggests that all of Bereshit, not just its first two chapters, should be considered a "book of creation", explaining how the Avot "create" the future through their actions. [See below about this concept of מעשה אבות סימן לבנים] He asserts that Shemot is about exile and redemption, connecting the latter to Hashem's presence.  Thus, he explains that that the book closes only after the building of the Mishkan, when Hashem's presence returned to dwell among the people. He explains how Vayikra is about the sacrificial service and how most of the other laws that are mentioned there connect in some way to that service. Finally, he notes that Devarim revolves around Moshe's recounting of mitzvot to the nation on the eve of their arrival in Israel.  It, therefore, includes both laws already taught and some new laws, but no priestly cultic law, as the priests were in no need of review.

⁹⁹ See, for instance, Bemidbar 5:6 where he explains why the laws of Sotah and Nazir are mentioned in Sefer Bemidbar and not in Sefer Vayikra, Shemot 21:1 on the order of the laws within Parashat Mishpatim, Vayikra 23:2 regarding why only certain laws of holidays appear there, while, others such as the mussaf sacrifices, are mentioned first in Bemidbar, or Bemidbar 15:2 where he explains why the laws of libations are first mentioned after the sin of the spies.  For other examples, see Bereshit 1:1,  Shemot 25:1 and 35:1, Vayikra 11:1, 25:1, 27:1, Bemidbar 7:1, 8:2, 19:2, 28:2, Devarim 1:1, 3:23-24, 4:3, 41,11:32, 12:30, 15:12. 16:1, 17:2, and 31:24.

¹⁰⁰ See, for example, Bereshit 48:18 (regarding the order of Yaakov's wives and sons), Vayikra 14:54 (regarding the order of the types of Tzara'at mentioned in the unit's conclusion), Vayikra 21:18 (regarding the order of the blemishes listed), Bemidbar 1:10 (regarding the ordering of Menashe and Ephraim in various lists), .

¹⁰¹ See Bemidbar 16:30 where he turns to geology to prove the miraculous nature of the earth's swallowing Korach.

¹⁰² See Bereshit 9:12-13, where he discusses the science behind rainbows and Shemot 9:9 on dust and drought.

¹⁰³ See Bereshit 2:24, 8:9, 15:11, 30:14,  30:35, Shemot 10:14, 21:31.

¹⁰⁴ See the many cases where he references medical books and doctors or otherwise draws on his knowledge of medicine: Bereshit 30:14 ("אבל לא ראיתי כן באחד מספרי הרפואות המדברים בהם"), Bereshit 45:26 (וזה הענין ידוע בבא השמחה פתאום, והוזכר בספרי הרפואות), and Vayikra 11:13 ("ראיתי בקצת ספרי הנסיונות שחלב החזיר אם ינק היונק ממנו יהיה אותו הנער מצורע").  See also Bereshit 19:17, 31:35, Vayikra 3:9, 12:2,  13:3, 13:29, 18:19 and Bemidbar 21:9.

¹⁰⁵ See the list of examples above, under the discussion regarding Ramban's updates.

¹⁰⁶ See, for example, Bereshit 46:29, where Ramban determines the subject of the phrase "וַיֵּבְךְּ עַל צַוָּארָיו עוֹד" to be Yaakov rather than Yosef, noting that it is much more likely that it is the elderly father, who has not seen his son in years, who is sobbing, rather than the young son who stands as second in command in Egypt.  See also his comments to Shemot 2:24, which describes how the Israelites react to the death of Paroh, not with happiness, but with sighs.  Ramban explains that fear of the unknown and potential for an even worse monarch eclipsed any happiness over the old monarch's death.  For other examples, see Bereshit 4:8, 18:15, 27:21, 28:20, 29:12,27, 30:1-2, 41:38, Shemot 1:10, 2:11, 32:16, Bemidbar 13:20, 16:1, 4.

¹⁰⁷ For example, see Bereshit 29:13 where he explains that though Rachel runs to her father to tell him his relative has come, Rivka runs to her mother so as to show her the jewelry she had received, for this  "is the way of young women".  See also Bereshit 19:12 (כי דרך מוסר לשלוחים להציל בעל ביתם וכל אשר לו), 24:15, Bereshit 27:12, 33, 29:30, 31:35, 35:8 (end), 37:3,26,  38:3, 15, 18, 47:7, 49:21, Shemot 21:19-20, 22:6, 22:12, 30:19, 39:37, and Devarim 21:12.

¹⁰⁸ See, for example, Bereshit 23:6, 24:32, 25:34, 31:19, 33:20, 38:8, Shemot 18:15, 28:2.

¹⁰⁹ See Bereshit 38:24, Devarim 16:22, or 23:19.

¹¹⁰ See, for example, Bereshit 38:29, "וענין פרץ בכל מקום נתיצת הגדר ועברו", or Bereshit 25:22 where he writes "ולא מצאתי דרישה את השם רק להתפלל" and Bereshit 39:10 similarly, "כי לא מצאנו אצלה על המשגל, רק עמה או אותה".  These examples attest to Ramban's global analysis of each word's usage.  For many other cases where Ramban explains a word or phrase in light of other verses, see Bereshit 25:31, 30:20,23, 31:19, 32:11,21 33:10,11, 34:23, 37:2, 37:36, 41:1,2, Shemot 2:1, 6, and many more.

¹¹¹ See, for example Bereshit 39:20, 40:16, Shemot 7:11 (where he turns to Aramaic), Devarim 21:14 (where he utilizes Arabic), or ,

¹¹² See his comments to Bereshit 32:21, where he notes the differences between Aramaic and Hebrew, rejecting a possible explanation for a word, noting that it might take that meaning in Aramaic, but not in Hebrew. See his similar comments in Bereshit 49:22, where he rejects an interpretation of Rashi which is based on the Aramaic, writing: "ורחוק הוא מאד לסמכו אל הלשון ההוא, שלשונות כאלה בתלמוד יוני או פרסי, ושאר לשונות אין להם חברהב בלשון הקדש."

¹¹³ See Bereshit 36:7 for many examples of words which are missing the definite article, "ה", Devarim 16:2 regarding a missing conjunction "ו" in lists,

¹¹⁴ See Bereshit 24:64 (regarding "מ"), Bereshit 40:2 ("ב"), or Bereshit 45:23 ("כ").

¹¹⁵ See, for instance, Bereshit 30:20 (regarding "ו" and "ב"), Shemot 15:10 (regarding "פ" and "ב"), Bereshit 41:47 ("כ" / "ק" and "ג") , Shemot 22:15 (regarding "ר" and "ל"), Devarim 2:23 ("ע" and "ח"), Bereshit 32:25 regarding the interchangeability of other gutteral letters.  See also Devarim 3:13 that the letter "ה" might stand in for the word "אשר".

¹¹⁶ See, for example, Bereshit 39:14 and examples there. See also 46:29 regarding instances in which a verb refers to a subject mentioned only afterwards.

¹¹⁷ See Bereshit 22:4 where he notes that often the verb "נתן" is simply assumed (see also Bereshit 25:28, Devarim 6:2),

¹¹⁸ See Bereshit 24:10, 45:23, Shemot 23:18,

¹¹⁹ See Shemot 32:32,

¹²⁰ See Bereshit 4:1, 32:7, Shemot 4:5, 9:27, 16:1, 17:1, Vayikra 7:21, Bemidbar 16:11, 21:18, 28:20.

¹²¹ Thus, the verse would read as if written: "‎גֵר יִהְיֶה זַרְעֲךָ בְּאֶרֶץ לֹא לָהֶם אַרְבַּע מֵאוֹת שָׁנָה וַעֲבָדוּם וְעִנּוּ אֹתָם". See Duration of the Egyptian Exile for how this reading affects the dispute regarding the length of the exile and bondage. See other examples brought in Bereshit 15:13, and see also Bereshit 8:5, Vayikra 1:15, 25:20 (and how this reading affects one's understanding of the the Pre-Shemittah Blessing of the Produce), Bemidbar 19:2 (end), 20:8, 22:33 (and see similarly Bereshit 30:30 for other examples relating to the placement of the word "גם").
Elsewhere, Ramban does not use the language of "מקרא מסורס" but notes the same phenomenon. See Bereshit 19:17, 24:10, 37:2, 49:3, Vayikra 1:1, 1:2, Devarim 9:3 and 33:2.  In all of these Ramban notes the misplaced modifier and rearranges the order of the verse, prefacing the reorderring with the word "שיעורו" or "כמו". Elsewhere Ramban will note the misplaced clause and tell the reader that it refers back to a different section, using the language of "חזור/שב אל "  or "דבק/קשור עם"  and the like. See Bemidbar 3:4, 4:32, 5:15, Devarim 1:13, 10:12, and 34:11.
There are several places where Ramban argues against Rash or Ibn Ezra's suggestions of reordering.  See, for example, Bereshit 2:19, Shemot 2:5, Vayikra 22:2, Bemidbar 14:21, Devarim 5:5, 6:3.

¹²² Contrast Ramban with Ibn Ezra who will often belittle the question why.  See, for example,

¹²³ In this he stands in contrast to Rashi who claims that at least the "חקים" of Torah have no reason, "חקים אלו גזרות מלך שאין טעם לדבר". Ramban disagrees, explaining that the Sages' statement that these are "decrees of a king" means only that Hashem did not reveal their reason, not that there is none: ואין הכונה בהם שתהיה גזרת מלך מלכי המלכים בשום מקום בלא טעם, כי כל אמרת אלוה צרופה (משלי ל׳:ה׳), רק החוקים הם גזרות מלך אשר יחוק במלכותו בלי שיגלה תועלתם לעם.(Vayikra 19:19).

¹²⁴ The two often argue regarding the specific reason for any given law, but on the principle that mitzvot have benefits and utility, they concur.  For examples of where they come head to head in their understanding of specific mitzvot, see Purpose of the Sacrifices

¹²⁵ See also Devarim 6:20 where he lists several different types of laws, showing how each is beneficial:: "Edot" testify to God's miracles, instilling belief, "Mishpatim," which include much of civil law, promote societal well-being, and even "Chukim" whose reasons are not self-evident, are  "לטוב לנו ... אין בהם חוק שתהיה בו רעה כלל".

¹²⁶ See Devarim 4:6 and 22:6, "אין התועלת במצות להקב״ה בעצמו יתעלה אבל התועלת באדם עצמו, למנוע ממנו נזק, או אמונה רעה, או מדה מגונה".

¹²⁷ See the extensive discussion in Shemot 13:16 regarding the many mitzvot which were instituted to remember past miracles, such as the Exodus. Ramban notes that miracles attest to God's role as Creator and His continued providence.  However, as Hashem does not perform such open miracles daily for every person, there is a need to remember those He has performed in the past so as to ensure continued belief in God. Cf. similar comments in Devarim 6:20. Ramban also notes that several laws were instituted as a reaction to idolatry. See for instance Vayikra 2:11 regarding the prohibition of leavening and honey on sacrifices, Devarim 16:21 regarding planting an Asherah near an altar, and Devarim 16:22 regarding monuments.

¹²⁸ See, for example, his comments regarding the health benefits of observing Kashrut (Vayikra 11:9, 13) and Orlah (Vayikra 19:23-25), or the hygienic benefits of the laws of impurity in Vayikra 12:4.

¹²⁹ For many examples, see Shemot 13:16 (regarding Tefillin and the many laws instituted to remember the Exodus), Shemot 20:13 (regarding many of the ten commandments), Shemot 20:21 (on the prohibition of making an altar with cut stones), Vayikra 9:1 (where he argues with Rambam regarding the Purpose of the Sacrifices), Vayikra 11:9 and 13 (on Kashrut)  Vayikra 16:2 (regarding the Service of Vayikra 16),  Vayikra  16:8 (regarding the Goat Sent to Azazel) Vayikra 17:11 (on the Prohibition of Blood), Vayikra 13:47 (regarding Tzara'at), Vayikra 18:28 (on the punishment of Karet), Vayikra 19:19 (on the Laws of Hybrids), Vayikra 19:23-25 (on the Purpose of Orlah), Vayikra 25:29 (land redemption), Bemidbar 6:11 (Chatat of the Nazirite), Bemidbar 19:2 (פרה אדומה), Bemidbar 21:21 (prohibition to conquer the land of Sichon) Devarim 4:9 (not to forget Revelation), Devarim 22:6 (קַן צִפּוֹר).  Regarding even simply the details of certain laws, see Vayikra 3:1 and 7:9.  Many of Ramban's reasons are rationalistic, though some are kabbalistic as well.

¹³⁰ See Shemot 20:22, where he writes, "ולמצות השם טעמים רבים בכל אחת, כי יש בכל אחת תועלות רבות לגוף ולנפש". For example, he gives multiple reasons for the mitzvot of kashrut, orlah, and the prohibition of blood, some spiritual in nature and others more utilitarian.

¹³¹ See, for example, Bereshit 13:1 where Ramban questions why the verse goes out of its way to state that Avraham returned from Egypt "with his wife and all that was his", explaining that the verse wants to highlight Hashem's providence, how Avraham left Egypt with all the wealth given him and nothing was stolen.  See also 14:18 (regarding why the verse shares that Malki Tzedek was a "כהן לאל עליון"), 16:2 (on why the verse states "וַיִּשְׁמַע אַבְרָם לְקוֹל שָׂרָי" and not simply "ויעש כן"), 18:1 (explaining why the verse needs to locate the event as occurring in Elonei Mamrei).  For some of many other examples, see Bereshit 22:24, 24:1, 61, 67, 26:1, 27:15, 28:5, 29:30, 30:5, 31:24, 34:2, 35:13, 37:14, 38:7, 40:7, 41:6, Shemot 15:25, 16:2, Vayikra 7:28, 12:4, Bemidbar 1:18, 2:4, 12:16, 20:1, 25:12, 26:9,58.

¹³² In this he follows Radak, who paved the way for such analysis (which was not common in earlier commentaries). For many examples, see Bereshit 1:1 (on the necessity to start Torah with the story of Creation), 4:17 (regarding Kayin's building a city), 5:4 (the inclusion of the genealogy lists), 9:18 (Noach's drunkenness), 10:5 (the list of descendants of Noach and the story of the tower of Bavel), 23:19 (the burial of Sarah) 25:17 (the age of death of Yishmael), Bereshit 29:2 (the story of Yaakov and the shepherds), 36:31 (the list of kings of Edom), 37:15 (Yosef's not being able to find the brothers in Shekhem), 46:15 (the 70 descendants of Yaakov), or 47:14 (Yosef's Economic Policies in Egypt).

¹³³ See, for example, Shemot 23:24 (regarding multiple mentions of the sin of idolatry) Shemot 36:8 (regarding the Mishkan) or Bemidbar 7:12 (regarding the repetition by the gifts of the princes).

¹³⁴ For example, Ramban notes that the story of Noach's drunkenness (Bereshit 9:18) is included in Torah to teach that even the righteous are not immune to the ill effects of wine, and to show why the descendants of Shem merited Canaan's land (Cf. Ibn Ezra 9:18 and Radak 9:20, and Ramban Bereshit 49:12, Bemidbar 5:6, 6:11 on the evils of wine). The story of Avraham's burial of Sarah (Bereshit 23:19) is included to both demonstrate Hashem's fulfillment of the promise to Avraham that his name will become great and to publicize the site of the graves of the righteous.  Kayin's building of cities and the inventions of Lemekh's children are mentioned to show historical progress (Bereshit 4:17). Finally Yosef's Economic Policies in Egypt demonstrates Yosef's wisdom (Bereshit 47:14).

¹³⁵ See also his introduction to Sefer Shemot where he similarly writes, "השלים הכתוב ספר בראשית שהוא ספר היצירה בחידוש העולם ויצירת כל נוצר ובמקרי האבות שהם כענין יצירה לזרעם, מפני שכל מקריהם ציורי דברים לרמוז ולהודיע כל עתיד לבא להם". In other words, the actions of the forefathers pave the way for the future behavior of their descendants and foretell the pivotal events which are to befall the nation.

¹³⁶ He writes, "אָמַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לְאַבְרָהָם אָבִינוּ צֵא וּכְבשׁ אֶת הַדֶּרֶךְ לִפְנֵי בָנֶיךָ, אַתְּ מוֹצֵא כָּל מַה שֶּׁכָּתוּב בְּאַבְרָהָם כְּתִיב בְּבָנָיו".

¹³⁷ Ramban's formulation of the principle even echoes the language of R. Yehoshua who had stated, "סִימָן נָתַן לוֹ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לְאַבְרָהָם, שֶׁכָּל מַה שֶּׁאֵרַע לוֹ אֵרַע לְבָנָיו."

¹³⁸ Ramban, for example, suggests that the future exiles to Egypt and Bavel are predicted already in Avraham's descent to Egypt (Bereshit 12:10) and Yitzchak's sojourn by the Philistines (Bereshit 26:1) respectively. Aspects of the stories of the Battle of the Kings (Bereshit 14:1), the Covenant of the Pieces (Bereshit 15:12), and Yaakov's Dream in Beit El (Bereshit 28:12) each foretell the four kingdoms which are to rule over Israel.  The stories of both Yitzchak's digging of wells (Bereshit 26:20) and Yaakov's meeting by a well (Bereshit 29:2)  hint to the future Mikdash, while the "עגלה משולשת ועז משולשת" in the Covenant of the Pieces represent the three types of sacrifices (Bereshit 15:9-10). For other examples, see Ramban on Bereshit 12:9, 13:17, 14:18, 16:6-9, 26:32, Bereshit 32 introduction, 32:4, 9, 17, 26, 33:15, 33:18, 36:43, 43: 14 and 47:28. 
In some of these cases, Ramban suggests that the actions of the Patriarchs actually determined future history (12:6), while in others they might simply hint to what is to come (Bereshit 26:1 or 32:9). In yet other cases, what happens to the descendants is a measure for measure payback for deeds of the forefathers (12:10, 16:6).

¹³⁹ For example, in Bereshit 4:1 he questions why there is no explanation given for Hevel's name, whereas there had been for Kayin's. See also Bereshit 12:2 where he questions why Tanakh does not introduce Avraham by sharing background regarding his righteousness and beliefs. See also Bereshit 20:7, 26:4, 36:8, 37:2, 38:3, Shemot 2:1 and Devarim 13:15.
Elsewhere, Ramban questions not why Tanakh does not mention an event, but why it did not occur. See Bereshit 26:7 (why the Philistines ask about Rivka but not the children), 27:12 (why Yaakov does not fear that his voice will be recognized), 41:2 (why no other countries except Egypt stored up food), Shemot 4:10 (why Hashem does not cure Moshe's speech impediment totally).

¹⁴⁰ See the discussion and examples above regarding Ramban's use of psychology.   See also Bereshit 27:4 (why Rivka never shared the prophecy with her husband), Bereshit 32:4 (why Yaakov felt a need to send messengers to Esav), 34:13 (why Yaakov got angry at Shimon and Levi), 35:16 (why Yaakov buried Rachel outside), or 37:2 (why all the brothers hated Yosef).

¹⁴¹ See his comments to Vayikra 18:25 and Devarim 11:10 and less explicitly in Bereshit 12:1-2, 24:3, 28:21,2, 33:20, Devarim 4:28, 17:2.

¹⁴² See his comments to Vayikra 18:25, Devarim 4:5 and 11:18.  He uses this distinction to explain how the Avot (whom he maintains kept mitzvot voluntarily) transgressed certain mitzvot, such as marrying two sisters, explaining that they only kept the laws in the land of Israel (Bereshit 26:5). [For further discussion, see Avot and Mitzvot – Was Avraham the First Jew.]

¹⁴³ In this he is drawing off Sifre Devaim 11:17, "אף על פי שאני מגלה אתכם מן הארץ לחוצה לארץ הוו מצויינין במצות, שכשתחזרו לא יהו עליכם חדשים".

¹⁴⁴ See his comments to Vayikra 18:2 how the land cannot stand impurity and thus vomits out those who commit sexual offenses or worship idolatry, or Bemidbar 35:33 where he notes that Hashem's presence cannot bear to stay in Israel if innocent blood is shed there. The idea is reflected also in Ramban's stance that the punishment of tzara'at is inflicted only in Israel (Vayikra 13:47).

¹⁴⁵ See Bemidbar 35:33. This applies even to non Jews. See Ramban on the destruction of Sedom , "כי יש באומות רעים וחטאים מאד ולא עשה בהם ככה, אבל למעלת הארץ הזאת היה הכל, כי שם היכל י״י" (Bereshit 19:5; see also Bereshit 1:1 and Vayikra 18:25). Though others might have sinned similarly, only Sedom was destroyed for the land of Israel could not bear its transgressions.

¹⁴⁶ See Prof. David Berger, "Miracles and the Natural Order in Nahmanides" who discusses the issue at length and Y. T. Langermann, "Acceptance and Devaluation: Nahmanides' AttitudeTowards Science", The Journal of Jewish Thought and Philosophy 1 (1992): 223-245 .

¹⁴⁷ See Ramban Bereshit 17:1, Shemot 13:16 and Vayikra 26:11.

¹⁴⁸ He distinguishes between revealed (obviously supernatural phenomenon) and such hidden miracles (those which do not entail an obvious change in nature, yet are still attestations of Divine providence).

¹⁴⁹ See Shemot 13:16 and similarly in his Derashat Torat Hashem Temima (p. 153): "אין לאדם חלק בתורת משה רבינו עד שיאמין שכל דברינו ומעשינו כולם נסים, אין בהם טבע ומנהגו של עולם, שהרי יעודי התורה כולם נסים ומופתים גמורים הם כי אין הפרש למי שמעיין יפה בין צדיק ימלא ימיו ויחיה שמונים שנה בהשקט ובטחה ובלא חולי ובין שאכל תרומה ימות או חנניה בן עזור שנאמר לו השנה אתה מת כי סרה דברת (ירמי' כח:טז) ובין קריעת ים סוף".

¹⁵⁰ See Bereshit 18:19, Devarim 11:13 and Iyyov 36:11.

¹⁵¹ Only in such cases will Hashem intervene to reward or punish individually.

¹⁵² See, for example, his understanding that the Banishment of Hagar and Yishmael was a justified reaction to Yishmael's evil conduct (Bereshit 21:9), or that the Sale of the Birthright was  fair deal, reflecting Esav's true valuation of the birthright (Bereshit 25:32).  See also Bereshit 30:1 (explaining Yaakov's anger at Rachel), 31:19 (regarding the terafim by Rachel and Michal/David), 38:2 (Yehuda's Marriage to a Canaanite).

¹⁵³ According to Ramban, this sin was the ultimate cause of the exile and bondage in Egypt. See Bereshit 12:10 and Endangering Sarai in Egypt. See also Bereshit 16:6, where Ramban claims that Sarah sinned in her Treatment of Hagar.

¹⁵⁴ See similarly Devarim 4:30 (where he mentions the verse's relevance to the Baylonian exile/redemption) or Devarim 28:42 (where he shows how the verse might apply to the reigns of various Roman emperors).

¹⁵⁵ See his comments to Vayikra 19:2, Devarim 6:8.  Cf. Vayikra 23:24 regarding the need for certain rabinnic decrees.

¹⁵⁶ He writes, "ואשים למאור פני נרות המנורה הטהורה, פירושי רבינו שלמה עטרת צבי וצפירת תפארה, מוכתר בנימוסי במקרא במשנה ובגמרא, לו משפט הבכורה, בדבריו אהגה, באהבתם אשגה, ועמהם יהיה לנו משא ומתן דרישה וחקירה".  See also his words of praise in Vayikra 25:9 (והנה הרב מפני בקיאותו בתלמוד ושהכל לפניו כשולחן ערוך,) and Bemidbar 32:40 (והנה הרב אוצר בלום לתורה להלכות ולהגדות).

¹⁵⁷ As Ramban comments on 1710 verses in Torah, this means that Ramban addresses Rashi in over 1/3 of his comments. In the vast majority of these cases, Ramban is directly quoting Rashi, writing "לשון רבינו שלמה" (486 times), or "כתב רבינו שלמה" (148 times).  Elsewhere, he writes "פירש רבינו שלמה"  or similar.

¹⁵⁸ See, for example, Shemot 15:10, Vayikra 19:23, Bemidbar 16:5, 24:7 or Devarim 31:23, where Ramban cites Rashi and then writes, "ויפה פירש".

¹⁵⁹ See, for instance, Bereshit 24:10, 25:17, 33:20, 39:9, Vayikra 8:11, or Vayikra 22:28, where Ramban sometimes brings an additional prooftext, shows how Rashi's interpretation fits with another verse, or discusses Rashi's sources.

¹⁶⁰ See, for example, Bereshit 6:12, 13:7, 18:24, 24:10, 25:6, 29:7, 37:24, 36. In other cases he might reject Rashi's application of a midrash but explain the midrash's true intent or motivation. See Bereshit 1:1, 11:32, 12:1 and 23: 1.

¹⁶¹ See, for example, Bereshit 23:1, 24:7, 29:21, 30:1,30,40, 31:19, 33, 32:2-3, 11, 34:2, 7, 35:18, 36:43, 37:2, 38:5, 8, 11, 24, 29, 39:19. In many of these cases Ramban rejects the interpretation due to its being inconsistent with another verse.

¹⁶² See, for example, the many places where he writes "ולא הבינותי זה" (Bereshit 14:6, 35:18, 36:43, Shemot 19:1, 21:15, Vayukra 22:15, Bemidbar 11:16, 18:10 and Devarim 26:14). Some exceptions where Rashi react more sharply include Bereshit 6:3 (ואין בפירוש הזה טעם או ריח), Shemot 10:14 (ואלה דברים בטלים), Vayikra 19:16 (ואין במה שפירש בתרגום הזה טעם או ריח) and Devarim 33:17 (והנה הכתוב מבולבל מאד בפירוש הזה).