file Musings on Parshat Noach

  • Heshy Berenholz
  • Heshy Berenholz's Avatar Topic Author
  • Offline
  • Moderator
  • Moderator
4 years 11 months ago #356 by Heshy Berenholz
Musings on Parshat Noach was created by Heshy Berenholz

 Noach, a righteous man, sires three sons Shem, Cham and Yefes
 The world becomes corrupted with crime and lawlessness and is ultimately destined to be destroyed because of Mankind’s rampant thievery
 God instructs Noach to build an Ark for to save himself, his family and all animal life, from the impending flood
 The flood waters destroy all human and animal life (but not fish)
 The waters subside eventually and the Ark rests on the Ararat mountains
 Noach, his family and the animals leave the Ark a year after the Flood started
 Noach offers up animals to God on an altar that he builds
 God commits Himself to never destroy Mankind again
 The rainbow serves as a reminder of God’s commitment to never again bring a repeat of the flood; He promises Noach that there will never again be a disruption of the seasons of the year
 Animals become permitted food for Mankind
 Murder and suicide are prohibited
 The Noahide Laws
 God commands Noach to populate the world
 Noach plants a vineyard, gets drunk and is abused by his son Cham (or by his grandson Canaan)
 Noach is 950 years old when he dies
 Listing of the descendants of Noach
 The nations of the world unite against God and start to build a city and a giant tower (later named the tower of Bavel)
 Having completed the history of the development of Mankind , the Torah begins the detailed history of the formation of the Hebrew race (which ultimately would become God’s chosen nation)
 A listing of the generations of Noach’s descendants from his son Shem to Terach, father of Avram, Nachor and Haran
 Terach leaves his home in Ur Kasdim (Iraq) with Avram and his wife Sarai and his grandson Lot. He heads to the Land of Canaan but only reaches Charan (Turkey) six hundred miles away, where he dies.

The Flood Timeline
 It takes Noach 120 years to build the Ark (to give the population opportunities to repent)
 When Noach is 600 years old, on the tenth day of the second month (either Cheshvan or Iyar), God instructs him to board the Ark with…
• His family
• A male and female from each animal species
• Seven couples of animals from species that later will be deemed suitable for sacrifices
• Sufficient food
 A week later, on the seventeenth day of the second month, the wellsprings of the great deep (hot lava?) burst forth and the heavens open up. Water from above and below continues for forty days and forty nights
 The Ark is lifted then floats in water that rises to 30 feet higher than the tallest mountain for 110 days
 The waters begin to recede and on the seventeenth day of the seventh month the Ark rests on the mountains of Ararat (in present-day Turkey)
 Seventy three days later, on the first day of the tenth month, the tops of ordinary mountains become visible
 Noach waits forty days before opening the Ark window and sends out a raven, a bird of prey that could sustain itself on carrion that would abound if the earth were dry. But the raven refuses to go and circles around the Ark
 Seven days later he sends out a dove which, because it feeds on vegetation, would be a better indicator of the status of the earth. The dove , not finding any dry place to land returns and Noach brings it back into the ark
 After seven days more a dove is sent out in the morning a second time but this time it returns at eve-time with a freshly-plucked olive leaf in its mouth
 When the dove is sent back out a second time seven days later, it does not return
 On the first day of the first month of Noach’s six hundred and first years the waters from the earth had dried up
 On the seventeenth day of the second month the earth was completely dry

The Flood

• Cleansing process through water, the universal purifying agent
• Symbolic rebirthing of Mankind (like amniotic fluid)
• Cataclysmic geological/ environmental event ( including hot lava flows beneath the earth breaking through to the surface) that transformed topography; fossilized existent human, animal and plant life; and shortened Man’s life span
• Wiped out/dissolved all life (except fishes) beyond recognition

A Re-Creation Saga

Rabbi David Fohrman focuses on the correspondence of events in the original creation story and those reported here. The destruction of the earth by the flood sets the stage for a second chance for humanity to live in accordance with God’s will.

Just as the Torah describes “God’s Spirit was hovering above the Water” at the beginning of Creation, the Flood saga is filled with images of water being directed by God. The creation of a separation between the waters above and those below on the second day finds a parallel here in the separate behavior of the rains pouring down from above and the liquids in the earth’s core pushing upward to the surface. On day three of creation the earth’s waters form bodies of water and the land became visible. In the flood story the waters that reached well above the highest mountains gradually recede until dry land is visible. God’s command to “let birds fly over the earth, across the firmament of the skies” finds its parallel here in Noach’s search for information about the world after the flood by sending out birds-- first a raven and then doves. The “arrival” (formation) of animals and Man on earth in the creation story is mirrored here in the departure of the animals and humans from the Ark and their re-arrival on the dry earth. The seventh day, the Sabbath, celebrates God’s resting from His work. Rabbi Fohrman suggests that God’s covenantal words about the meaning and purpose of the rainbow here in the flood story links to God’s words about the covenantal nature of the Sabbath not as they appear in the creation story but as they appear later in the book of Shemos. Many of the same Hebrew words are used in both.

The New World of Man is different from God’s original creation in that Man is given greater dominion over animal life [they will now also fear him] and is also permitted to eat animals that have been slaughtered. Also, God promises to never destroy Mankind.

The Man Noach

The Torah describes Noach as Ish Tzadik (righteous man) who walked “with the support of God”. Rabbi Marc Angel sees this as a testament to Noach who focused entirely on his relationship with God and was not shaken or troubled by the ugliness and evil of the everyday life in the Society of which he was a part. He had the inner strength to remain separated from the prevailing corrupt and sinful behavior surrounding him. Ultimately “Noach found favor in the eyes of God”. The name Noach also means calm or serene. The lesson here, states the sixteenth century sage, Rabbi Elazar Azikri, is that calmness and serenity are the things that find Divine favor. Thus, concludes Rabbi Angel, the extremely difficult task of maintaining one’s spiritual equilibrium and internal strength in the face of external events or words (just as Noach did) “is the way to maintain inner strength, balance and righteousness”.
Rashi contrasts Noach’s relationship with God with that of Avraham who on his own was able to act with righteousness and who took the initiative to demand Divine justice from God even when it meant questioning, disagreeing and arguing with Him.
Noach accepts God’s plan for destruction without question; he just obeys and does as he is told. Furthermore, he does not even try to convince the people of the world to repent to prevent imminent destruction. The appropriateness of this behavior is dealt with in the following fascinating Midrash cited by Rabbi Jonathan Sacks.

Discussing Noach’s reluctance to leave the ark after the flood, the Midrash makes the following comment:
“Once the waters had abated, Noah should have left the ark. However, Noah said to himself, ‘I entered with God’s permission, as it says, “Go into the ark” (Bereishit 7:1). Shall I now leave without permission?’ The Holy One, blessed be He, said to him, ‘Is it permission, then, that you are seeking? Very well, then, here is permission,’ as it is said: [Then God said to Noah] ‘Come out of the ark’ (Bereshit 8:15). Rabbi Yehudah bar Ilai said: If I had been there, I would have broken down the ark and taken myself out.”

Rabbi Nathan Lopes Cardozo sees in this a subtle criticism of the kind of religious behavior [that, unfortunately, we see so much of today] that “stifles human autonomy, action, innovation and responsibility”. Noach believes that there is no place for religious initiative, that one cannot make a move unless God expressly sanctions or dictates it—even when it comes to as important a task as rebuilding a broken world! Noach refuses to challenge God and to take initiative. Instead, he hides behind the letter of the law and fails to demonstrate the courage that was so badly needed then. It is this thinking and this behavior that Rabbi Yehudah bar Ilai rails against. [Note: Rabbi Sacks quotes his teacher, Rabbi Dr. Nachum Rabinovitch, who drew a comparable moral: “…when it comes to rebuilding shattered world, you do not wait for permission. God gives us permission. He expects us to go on ahead.”]

Rabbi Cardozo sees the Ark as a metaphor for one’s physical and mental ghetto-- a place of security, “an oasis in the storm of human pain and upheaval.” The lone window is on the roof facing up only to heaven, to God. There are no other windows to see what’s happening in the world and to help others in trouble and to respond to their cries for help. Noach does nothing beyond the stated religious obligations. He attends to his family and to the other living creatures on board because he was commanded to. He is the very frum one, the one who lives by his blind obedience, believing that he cannot possibly know the difference between right and wrong and therefore must not veer from the exact words of God. He feels his belief and his behavior are the pinnacle of religiosity.

Rabbi Cardozo questions whether Noach is, in fact, the appropriate representative of religious behavior. A better, more authentic model among the ancients is Avraham Avenu who had the courage of his self-found faith to question the validity of the idols belonging to his father-- and then destroy them. He is the one who later would contest God’s decision to destroy Sedom and Amora, arguing that the outcome would be unjust. No doubt that had it been him and not Noach, Avraham would have argued with God about the decision to destroy all Mankind. No doubt he would have traveled among the population begging them and pleading with them to change their ways to head off the looming disaster. No doubt that had he been in the Ark when it settled on Ararat he would have broken down the door to get out as fast as he could and see how he could help the suffering and assist in the rebuilding process.

Rabbi Cardozo reminds us that authentic Judaism is based on the covenant between Man and God in which Man is called upon to be creative; to be a partner with Him; to build (or rebuild) the world with God-given tools; and to stand on our own two feet and make our own decisions. Religion is war says the Kotzker Rebbe. “It is a fight against indolence and callousness that stifles personal responsibility”.

On Eating Meat

Permission is being granted grudgingly, with strict regulations; we are given a special dispensation to slaughter animals for consumption.

This interpretation is consistent with Rav Abraham Isaac Kook’s world view. Rav Kook (1865-1935), the first Ashkenazi Chief Rabbi of Palestine, believed that Creation filled the world with harmony between Man and the animal kingdom, the two highest life forms. Initially Man’s food was to consist of vegetables and fruit. But with the moral decay that precipitated the Flood, this harmony was shattered and all Mankind was permitted to be carnivorous.

The killing of animals for food is not an ideal state. Rav S. R. Hirsch notes that in the realm of vegetation there are no plants that are prohibited. Perhaps the Torah seeks to “endorse emphatically the primal state of Man when meat was not allowed as food fit for Man” (Rav Jacobson). But since Man could no longer control himself, says Rav Kook, the Torah channeled these aggressive drives (cannibalism? murder?) to animals, in the hope that Man’s appetite for bloodshed would no longer find expression in killing his fellow Man. In his view, both the rituals relating to slaughtering and the dietary laws were designed to arouse our feelings of injustice committed against the animal kingdom.

The Noahide Laws

According to the Sages these moral imperatives were established for “the children of Noach” (i.e., all of humanity). Any non-Jew who adheres to these laws is regarded as a “righteous gentile”. They are:
• Not worshiping idols
• Not blaspheming God
• Establishing a just court system
• Not murdering
• Not committing adultery
• Not robbing
• Not eating flesh cut from a living animal

The Rainbow

The first post-diluvian Man, Noach, was granted a blessing from and a covenant with God. The rainbow was designated to be the Divine reminder of God’s promise never to destroy Man by flood.

Yehuda Valladares thinks that it is the sun and colors of the rainbow soon after a rainfall that get us to think about what might have been. The rainfall could have brought destruction like the Great Flood during Noach’s time. Instead, we are blessed with light, hope and optimism.

Ramban first suggests that the rainbow is shaped like a bow pointing upward, thereby showing that God does not plan to rain arrows down on the world. He notes, further, that combatants will turn their bow the other way to show they want peace. But his conclusion is that there is no need to look for symbolism. The rainbow is a sign because God said so.

On the Tower and the City of Bavel

“The whole earth was of one language [idea? ideology?] and of common purpose.2 And it came to pass, when they migrated from the east they found a valley in the land of Shinar and settled there. 3 They said to one another, "Come, let us make bricks and burn them in fire." And the brick served them as stone, and the bitumen served them as mortar. 4And they said, "Come, let us build us a city, and a tower with its top in the heavens, and let us make a name for ourselves, lest we be dispersed across the whole earth."

5 HASHEM descended to look at the city and tower which the sons of man built, 6 and HASHEM said, "Behold, they are one people with one language for all, and this they begin to do! And now, should it not be withheld from them all they proposed to do?1 Come, let us descend and there confuse their language, that they should not understand one another's language."

8 And HASHEM dispersed them from there over the face of the whole earth; and they stopped building the city.9 That is why it (The CITY) was called Bavel, because it was there that HASHEM confused the language of the whole earth, and from there HASHEM scattered them over the face of the whole earth.”

At that time the people of the world spoke a presumably primitive language that contained a small vocabulary. They migrated Eastward (as viewed from Palestine) and settled in the plain of Shinar –an area that was rich in asphalt, a mineral that could be used to form bricks by baking them thanks to a new technology they had developed. They hoped for immortality by building a city (that would keep them unified and together) and a towering structure that would reach up to the Heavens. But “Man proposes and God disposes” and He confused their language and scattered them across the face of the earth. The city is left unfinished and is named Bavel because it sounds like balal, the Hebrew word for confusion. Philip Sandos speculates that it was the ancient calendar’s lunar orientation that precipitated the people’s desire to build a stairway to Heaven in order to wrest control of the Moon.

The story is written in two parts of almost equal size. The first section describes Man’s behavior; the second part, God’s response. The Torah’s uses the Hebrew word rayayhu in the phrase “… to one another”. Rayayhu contains the two letter word raysh and ayen which, together, means “friend” but also, ironically, means “wickedness” -- perhaps suggesting that beneath the calm surface of unity and friendship was a raging desire to join together to do evil.

What Was This Generation’s Sin?

The text provides no explicit explanation. The Midrash, focusing on the expression “when they migrated from the east” notes the similarly sounding Hebrew word “kedem”(east) and the phrase “kadmono” shel olam”(before the world existed) which refers to God. The people elected to move away from and to separate themselves from God and His ethics. Rather than acknowledging Him; being grateful to Him; and seeking to draw close to Him—as did the predecessor Noach and as would do the Patriarchs—they elected to rely on themselves to become “Masters of the Universe”.
Commentators have perceived this generation’s failings as being relating to a number of ideas including the hubris of technology and the urge to create a society characterized by totalitarian uniformity of thought and behavior. Following is a sampling of these ideas:
o Rashi (1040-1105) emphasizes their antagonistic attitude towards God—“v’naase LANU shaym” (“let us make a name for ourselves”). They excluded God from their aspirations and focused instead on their own goals and abilities. He also draws the contrast between this incident and the Flood story. In the latter the people perished because of their violent anti-social behavior. However, in this story, people lived in harmony and brotherhood with each other (they were one people with one language), so they were not destroyed, only scattered. We need to improve our behavior bayn adam l’chaveyro (between one another).

o Ibn Ezra (1089-1164) believes that the original Divine plan was for Mankind to disperse. But the people in the story were a boisterous and arrogant bunch who elected to undermine God’s plan by settling in only one area; constructing a city for their residence and erecting a monument for their prestige and self-glorification.

o Isaac Arama (1420-1494) sees in this tale a warning about the abuse of technical achievements and political organization. Instead of using the bricks they made for shelter, they considered the manufacture of brick an end in and of itself. Furthermore, they elevated the role of the State to be the most important thing in their lives.

o Seforno (1475-1550) focuses on God’s desire to “nip a problem in the bud”. The expression “God descended” is a phrase suggesting Divine evaluation of the longer-term consequences of a given behavior, which may not be evident now. A society characterized by totalitarian uniformity of thought and behavior eliminates the possibility of arriving at the truth. Only in an open and diverse society where there is free exchange and discussion of ideas and views can the Truth be found. Individuality and cultural pluralism are the paths to progress, not centralization. Religious freedom only exists where economic freedom is found.

o Umberto Cassuto (Italian scholar, 1883-1951; professor of Bible at Hebrew University) notes that there is no similar or parallel story found in ancient Babylonian or Near East literature. He concludes that “the narrative essentially represents a protest against the outlook and ideas of these people…a kind of satire” on what the surrounding Babylonian culture considered to be a (vain) glorious thing of beauty. The moral is that in Life, the Divine prevails.

o Benno Jacob’s (1862-1955) analysis is that the construction of the gigantic city (and Tower) was an attempt to frustrate God’s command to “be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth”. The brick-making technical breakthrough enabled Man to live in places lacking natural building material (like a valley). Technological breakthroughs that free Man from the limitation of natural boundaries can yield enormous benefits, but can also lead to overweening pride and self-aggrandizement. These achievements become an end in themselves rather than a means to advance humanity and its needs. Having the power to create can lead to feeling all-powerful! The Midrash beautifully portrays this behavior as follows: “If (during the course of the construction) a man fell down and died, no attention was paid to him but if (even) one brick fell down they would sit and weep and say Woe betide us, when will another one be hauled up in its place?” Material achievements supplanted moral values. In every generation there is the risk of the technology becoming an object of worship and its developers considering themselves God(ly).This is certainly evident in our time with the profound technological breakthroughs being made in many fields(biotechnology, genetics, internet and computer technologies).

o Rav S.R. Hirsch (1808-1888) thinks that they denigrated the importance of the individual relative to the role of the State.

o Professor Robert Altman views the story as a polemic against urbanism and against humanity’s over-confidence in its technology achievements. He also notes the Torah’s use of “interechoing words and … a deliberately restricted vocabulary”. There is an elegant symmetry of the words: Man says “hava nilbena” (“let us build”); God responds “hava nayrayd” [“let us descend (to see what is happening)”]. Man worries “lest we be scattered” (pen nafutz); God does in fact scatter them (hefetzam).The words Safa (language) and Aretz (world) each are repeated five times. There are also clever variations: chaymar (bitumen) becomes chomer (mortar); shaym (name), shamayim (heavens) and shaam (there) each contain the shin-mem root.

Why does this incident begin with the statement “The whole earth was of one language”? This is nothing new. This was the situation all along. What purpose is served by repeating this now? Also, why does the Torah utilize and repeat the Hebrew word safa for language instead of using lashon?

Yehuda Valladares thinks this introduction may be a way to further underscore the inappropriate behavior of the people. The opening statement presents a picture of a tranquil, harmonious environment in which the population could and should have devoted their energies in a productive way to dominate the earth, to procreate and to engage in positive activities that would better the world, as God wanted. Instead of turning outward to the world and to God, they became introverted and focused on themselves. Instead of worshipping God, they idolized their technological prowess. Safa can also mean rim or border or limit. Its repeated use may be another way of emphasizing how they purposely and repeatedly constrained, limited and prevented themselves from fulfilling God’s will.

 Jason Hoyt thinks that the detailed listing of the descendants of Adam (in parshat Bereshis) and of Noach (in this week’s parsha) is in recognition of each individual’s role in this chain of the selection process through which God singles out the Hebrew people from around the surrounding populations.

 Marty Langert notes the lack of mention of the women thus far. But this changes when the Torah recounts the family of Avram, suggesting that it was only when civilization finally stabilized and when the roots of the Hebrew nation began sprouting that it became especially urgent to describe the critical influence of mothers, daughters and sisters on our (and society’s) evolution.

 The re birth of Mankind after the Flood brought with it a series of structural changes that were deemed necessary for survival. These include:

o The Noahide laws-- without which civilization cannot exist
o Permission to eat meat-- as a means to re-channel our inherent aggressions away from humans to animals
o Prohibition of ingesting blood --as a way of curtailing pagan ritual and belief
o Promise of no repetition of the frightening world-wide devastation by flooding
o Public and permanent reminder of this divine promise and covenant in the form of a rainbow

 Differences Between the Torah’s Story of the Deluge and Other Flood Stories of Antiquity. The Babylonian parallel story in particular “is unethical and polytheistic, devoid of any uniform or exalted purpose, and lacking in reverence and restraint” states Rabbi Dr. J.H. Hertz. The Torah focuses on justice as the basis for human society. Noach, who was saved by virtue of his being righteous and blameless in a perverse generation, was worthy of being God’s instrument for inaugurating a new era of humanity. This ethic contrasts with the Babylonian story in which celestial caprice and favoritism prevail; only trickery and being “superlatively clever” assure success; and gods quarrel.
A contemporary scholar, Dr. Shalom Holtz, points out the fundamentally differing concepts of the relationship between humans and the divine inherent in the differing Flood stories. In the Mesopotamian Epic the gods, whose main concern was overpopulation, bring on a flood to reduce the number of people. They then took additional steps to prevent recurrence of this “problem” by focusing on human infertility, infant mortality and social institutions forbidding certain women from marrying.
The post-diluvian fresh start in the Torah story stands in sharp contrast. God directs Noach and family to repopulate and promises no repeat flood. Furthermore, He restricts violence against animals and outlaws violence between humans. Humanity is blessed with God’s covenant. Optimism and hope prevail; Mankind is given a second chance to thrive, but only by building a lawful society.

Rabbi H. L. Berenholz

Please Log in to join the conversation.

Moderators: Heshy Berenholz
Time to create page: 0.096 seconds