Parasha: Noach · Aliyah: First (Chesed)

אלה תולדת נח, Theses are the generations of Noach. When the Torah uses the term "these," it usually intends to exclude something, i.e. "these generations and not any others." In this instance there was no need for the Torah to use the term "these," as we already know that all the generations were doomed. For this reason the sages understand the word to teach us that the principal "generations," i.e. descendants of a person, are man's good deeds. They therefore read the verse as if there were no comma between the words נח, נח to indicate that Noach's descendants were his good deeds (Bereshit Rabbah 30,6). The Midrash was careful to say that the "principal" descendants of the righteous are their good deeds; naturally they also have other descendants. When the good deeds of Noach are described by the word אלה, this is only in contrast with those of the word תולדת at the beginning of chapter 5.

Another meaning of the sequence נח נח, is illustrated in an imaginary conversation between Moses and Noach reported in Devarim Rabbah 11,3. In that conversation Noach claimed to have been greater than Moses because he was saved during the deluge. Moses retorted that Noach had not been able to save anyone other than himself, whereas he had saved his generation after the sin of the golden calf. The word אלה accordingly describes the limited value of Noach's good deeds. They sufficed only to save himself. The additional word בדורתיו further underlines that Noach did not succeed to make penitents out of his peers. His sons who were considered as his "branches" are therefore included in the name Noach. The Torah accords Noach a compliment which it did not accord to righteous people who had lived before his time. Noach's righteous predecessors all had other righteous people to model themselves after, something that did not apply to Noach. He grew up surrounded only by wicked people. The word אלה therefore also has a positive connotation in that it sets Noach's pious conduct apart from all those who had preceded him.

There is another message contained in this verse which is commented upon in Bereshit Rabbah 25,2. The Midrash discusses whether Noach's name was in itself blissful, or whether in view of Noach's righteous way of life the blessings he conferred on earth were subsequently reflected in his name. Here is some of the discussion: "When G'd created Adam He invested him with a full range of authority. The cow obeyed the ploughman, the furrow co-operated with the plough. As soon as Adam sinned, the cow no longer responded to its owner, nor did the earth respond to the plough. This situation continued until the time of Noach. Once Noach appeared on earth the situation changed in man's favour. Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish added that until Noach the waters would flood the earth, something that stopped during Noach's time. At any rate, the name Noach is repeated in our verse to indicate the beneficial effect his existence had on the well being of his peers. The repetition of the word תולדת and the use of the word איש are an allusion to the fact that Noach was איש האדמה, an outstanding farmer (as is stated explicitly after the deluge (9,20). Our sages (Tanchuma Bereshit 11) find Noach's successful impact on farming alluded to in 5,29 where his father Lemech predicts that his son Noach will provide relief for עצבון ידינו, "the painful labour of our hands." The fact that Noach was born without a foreskin gave rise to these hopes. Apparently Noach invented a usable plough. The word צדיק hints that the righteous is the foundation of the universe, that without a righteous person the universe would forfeit its reason for existence. But for Noach the earth would have perished at the time of the deluge. The word חמים should be understood in the same vein as the Talmud Avodah Zarah 10 explains it. The Talmud understands the word צדיק as a reference to Noach's deeds, whereas the word תמים is a reference to Noach's lifestyle, his attitudes [as opposed to understanding the word as an adjective describing his righteousness. Ed.] All of this is additional praise for Noach who was able to perfect his personality in the face of such wicked contemporaries. Noach did far more than could have been expected of him. Our sages call such conduct לפנים משורת הדין. According to Samuel II, 22,27 G'd acts loyally with the loyal, whereas He uses wile in dealing with the perverse. According to this yardstick Noach would have been free to do likewise, but he chose to be more considerate than required by law. When the Torah describes Noach's perfection as בדורותיו this means that his goodness was recognised even by the people of his time. The plural in the expression בדורותיו reminds us that the average person's lifespan involves three generations. He lives during part of his father's generation, his contemporaries, and during part of his children's generation. Noach was unique during all these three generations; the only righteous member of a former generation that he shared time on earth with was his grandfather Methuselah. When the Torah tells us את האלוקים התהלך נח, that Noach walked with G'd, this means that even vis a vis G'd Noach's conduct was very constructive. Our sages tell us in connection with Noach's offering after the deluge (8,21) וירח השם את ריח הניחוח, that Noach's name is alluded to in the word ניחוח. The reason the Torah repeats the name Noach at the beginning is to refer to this second dimension of Noach's beneficial effect on mankind, when G'd decided not to bring another deluge ever, due to Noach's gratitude. The reason the Torah uses the verb הלך when describing Noach's conduct vis-a-vis G'd is because G'd describes a desirable conduct by man in those terms in Deut. 28,9. When the Torah here employs the reflexive התהלך, this merely emphasises that Noach kept walking with G'd. He provided pleasure to His Creator all the time, something which found its ultimate expression in his sacrifice after the deluge.

ויולד נח שלשה בנים. Noach fathered three sons. Why did the Torah have to repeat here that Noach fathered three sons when we have been told this already in 5,32? The mention of the number "three" seems quite superfluous in view of the fact that the Torah tells us the name of each son. Surely we can count up to three! Why did Noach's name have to be repeated? No one else is the subject here! The word בנים, sons, also seems superfluous. All the Torah had to write was: "Noach fathered Shem, Cham, and Yephet." Why did the Torah add the word את in front of each of the names?

In view of our explanation that the Torah considered Noach's good deeds his principal descendants, and that it was on that account that Noach had found favour in the eyes of G'd, our verse is necessary. Had the Torah failed to repeat the information contained in 5,32, we would not have considered his three sons as a positive accomplishment on Noach's part. The Torah does not report anything positive or negative about these sons. We would have thought these three sons as unfit either on account of their own poor characters or because Noach had not fathered them in order to fulfil G'd's commandment. The Torah therefore lists the birth of these three sons immediately after the list of Noach's good deeds so as to include them in that list. I have found in the Midrash that Noach foresaw that his sons would anger G'd and as a result he decided there was no point in siring children during the first five hundred years of his life. At that point G'd commanded Noach to marry and to have children. He had children in order to keep alive the human species. I believe that this Midrash interpreted the words את האלוקים התהלך נח to mean that Noach thought he was approaching death; therefore he sired children before it was too late. Another meaning of these words could be that Noach realised he would soon be judged by the attribute of Justice for failing to have sired children. This is why he hastened to get married and to sire children to rectify his sin of omission. Another reason for Noach's tardiness in marrying and raising a family (according to several Midrashim) is that G'd commanded Noach to build the ark when he was 480 years old. The deluge would occur in another 120 years. In those days children were not held accountable for their sins until they were one hundred years old. Noach wanted to insure that when the deluge came his children deserved to be saved because they had not reached the age when G'd held them responsible for their deeds. Hence he waited until he was 500 years old before he sired any children (Compare Bereshit Rabbah 26,2 based on Isaiah 65,20). Accordingly, Noach's eldest son would be under 100 years old at the beginning of the deluge.

The reason Noach's name is mentioned once more a) is to demonstrate again that he brought a new-found מנוחה rest or satisfaction to life on earth, b) to remind us that were it not for their father, these sons would not have been saved. Surely there were many youngsters below the age of one hundred at the time the deluge started and none of those were spared. I refer the reader to my comment on the words: "I have seen you to be a righteous person in this generation (7,1)." The three times את which appeared at first glance as superfluous refer to the wives of Noach's sons who were also saved only on account of Noach. If the sons of Noach per se did not warrant saving, why did G'd consider it necessary to repeat the report of the three sons that were born to Noach prior to the deluge?

We have to fall back on Sanhedrin 69 where the Talmud proves that the list of Noach's sons presented by the Torah is not according to their seniority but is based on the sons' relative intelligence. Shem is mentioned first as he was the most intelligent. If this were not so he could not have been described as one hundred years old when he sired Arpachshad two years after the deluge (11,10). If the Torah had not mentioned the extra word בנים, but had merely given their names, we would have concluded that the list of their names was according to the order of their births.

ותשחת הארץ. The earth had become corrupt. This entire verse is superfluous in view of 6,5. If the Torah only wanted to spell out details of man's sins, this too had been spelled out in greater detail in the previous passage. If the Torah wanted to add the element of violence perpetrated by man on earth, that is all that needed mentioning here. Besides, why did the Torah switch to the use of the name אלוקים, the attribute of Justice, whereas in 6,5 G'd's attribute of Mercy is used? What do the words לפני האלוקים in our verse add to our understanding? Why does the Torah repeat once more in 6,12 that "G'd saw, etc.?" The Torah certainly did not need to tell us that G'd had become aware of man's sins, as we all know that He is aware of all this?

We must understand the passage along the lines of the Mishnah Avot 4,11 that when a person violates a single commandment he acquires one accuser for himself. The "accuser" is to be understood as a destructive power (angel). This destructive power is not unleashed until the Supreme Judge of the whole universe has given a verdict concerning the person guilty of a misdemeanour. This is the deeper meaning of every time the Torah speaks about a sinner "carrying his guilt" (Leviticus 5,17 et al). Once G'd has pronounced judgment, He unleashes these accumulated destructive forces. When the prophet Jeremiah 2,19 says: תיסרך רעתך, "your wickedness will discipline you," he refers to these destructive forces which our sins have created and which G'd unleashes after having judged us. We have to appreciate that although G'd holds the accuser in check so that he cannot yet harm us, this applies only as long as our sins are relatively few or minor. If our sins keep accumulating, they exert pressure on the Heavenly Court so that the perpetrator of the sin may find himself the victim of some of these accusers even before final judgment has been decreed upon him. When the Torah speaks of "the earth had become corrupted before G'd," this means that before G'd had completed judging everyone individually, the collective total of the destructive powers created by man's sins was such that the destructive forces already dominated the earth. The reason the Torah speaks about הארץ is to tell us that the corruption had penetrated earth itself.

The Torah said in the previous verse: "the earth had become full of this corruption in the form of violence." Why did the Torah reverse this sequence? It should first have stated what G'd saw, and afterwards the extent of the corruption. As it is, the Torah tells us of the effect before telling us of the cause! The inverted method of reporting is to emphasise that even after the earth had already become full of corruption, all of which is subsumed under the heading "violence," man added further abominations to those already perpetrated. Although it is G'd's virtue to forgive or suspend punishment (נושא עון) until the time He sits in judgment, the sins of this generation were such that G'd could no longer practice this virtue. It was somewhat similar to when Cain had said to G'd that he found his penalty too hard to bear. He had used the term גדול עוני מנשוא, "is my guilt too great to forgive (4,13)?" Alternatively, the words ותשחת הארץ refer to the actual deeds, which caused the earth to become full of destructive agents all of which are described as חמס. G'd informed Noach (6,13) of this when He told him that קץ כל בשר בא לפני, that "the end for all flesh is approaching." According to the Zohar this means that the destructive forces created by man's sins which are called קץ have appeared before G'd demanding the speedy destruction of the perpetrators of all this evil. The Torah tells us for how long G'd restrained the attribute of Justice. This is why we have repeated references to G'd's awareness of man's wickedness ever since 6,5. When the Torah here finally uses the word אלוקים to describe G'd, it is to give notice that the attribute of Mercy itself had turned into one demanding that justice be done.

ותמלא הארץ חמס. The earth was filled with violence. There is a Midrash which illustrates the violence perpetrated by describing how people each helped themselves to a lupine out of a bowl that was set on the table. The Rabbis could not understand why the example mentioned shows that mankind was exterminated for a robbery involving such a minute amount. According to halachah theft of an amount worth less than a פרוטה, a certain small coin, is not subject to prosecution! I believe that the Midrash wanted to demonstrate that not only were the people of that generation guilty of violating all the seven Noachide commandments, but of something additional. They were sophisticated enough to engage in the kind of theft that was not subject to prosecution because the stolen goods came into their possession indirectly. According to Maimonides chapter nine of Hilchot Melachim even merely withholding wages from a labourer was subject to the death penalty in those days. Nonetheless the people of that generation were astute enough to borrow, i.e. to secure themselves credit and to draw on these credits in amounts of less than the value of the coin mentioned. This did not make them subject to prosecution if they failed to repay the credits. According to others it did not constitute robbery as long as the object was given to them willingly by its owner. Here in our verse the Torah may have alluded to all these kinds of robbery.

ויאמר אלוקים קץ כל בשר, G'd said: "The end of all flesh, etc." If we accept the sages' interpretation that the "violence" mentioned here comprised such sins as bloodshed, incest, and idolatry, we can understand the harshness of the retribution. If however, the word חמס refers to robbery with violence (compare Rashi based on Sanhedrin 108), why would the victims of the robbery suffer the same fate as the perpetrators of the crime?

Although one might answer that everybody indulged in robbery, each one according to what he thought he could get away with, our sages (Vayikra Rabbah 23,9) have explained the matter differently when they said that in any society in which sexual licentiousness abounds retribution will strike both the wicked and the good people. Therefore we must understand our verse as saying that though the decree to destroy mankind was sealed because of the prevalence of robbery with violence, the fact that amongst all the sins there were many instances of sexual licentiousness and promiscuity resulted in the retribution including also those who were innocent of robbery. You may ask that all these people could have saved themselves from Divine retribution by each one forgiving the other? As a result of this G'd would not have sealed the evil decree! Perhaps G'd did not want to reveal the effectiveness of mutual forgiveness to anyone but Noach. Noach in turn was not able to reveal this secret to his contemporaries seeing that unless G'd tells a person to communicate revelations made to him to others, such revelations are confidential communications from G'd. One of the reasons G'd did not want this secret revealed to Noach's contemporaries may have been that they all remained guilty of having committed robbery. The sin of robbery cannot be atoned for by simply offering the sinner your forgiveness without making restitution. Although the Midrash mentioned types of robbery which are not subject to prosecution, these types of robbery were not the only ones perpetrated by the people of Noach's time. The people of that generation indulged in every form of robbery. Whenever they confronted someone stronger than themselves they resorted to the kind of trickery described by the Midrash. Otherwise they had no qualms about simply grabbing what they fancied.

The reason G'd explained to Noach exactly what sins prompted Him to decree destruction of the species was to motivate him to build the ark so that all living creatures could be preserved until after the deluge.

Next we must explain what prompted Noach not to ask G'd to have mercy on the people of his time (as did Abraham when G'd told him He would destroy Sodom). It appears that Abraham learned from Noach not to bother to ask that G'd spare a city when there were fewer than ten good people in it. Unless he had learned this from Noach, who told Abraham that it would be futile to pray for the survival of a city which contained fewer than ten righteous people?

Noach became convinced from what G'd told him that any prayer of his would be futile, that the fate of these people had been sealed beyond reprieve. All of this is contained in the words: "the end of all flesh has come before Me, here I am about to destroy them." When G'd told Abraham (Genesis 18,20-21) about the sinful nature of the people of Sodom He did not use such kind of language at all. On the contrary, He told Abraham that He was going to examine if what had come to His attention was indeed so, etc. While it is true that in the case of Sodom G'd carried out His decree as soon as He had confirmed the true state of affairs, G'd wanted to demonstrate to Abraham that He does not exercise His power arbitrarily. We have explained in that connection that G'd spoke to Abraham in a manner that invited him to pray on behalf of the doomed cities. Something similar occurred during the episode of the golden calf when G'd proclaimed His intent to wipe out the Jewish people in such a way that Moses saw an opening for his prayer. None of these openings were provided for Noach.

One cannot argue that if G'd did not want Noach to pray for his contemporaries, He did not have to tell Noach what He was going to do and why. G'd needed to tell Noach in order that the latter build the ark. This commandment alone convinced Noach that it would be useless to pray on behalf of the people. Abraham concluded from the fact that Noach and his family were not enough to save the earth from the deluge that fewer than ten good people could not save a town from destruction.

עשה לך תבת עצי גפר. Make for yourself an ark of gopher wood. In order to understand this verse fully we must refer to Ezekiel 14,14 where the prophet speaks of three men, i.e. Noach, Daniel, and Job who managed to save their own lives due to their personal piety. The prophet there claims that G'd had told him that even if all these three pious men were alive in Jerusalem at that time they could not save the city from disaster though they personally would be saved. The reason all three of these pious men are mentioned is to teach us that even two of them together would not suffice to save themselves at that time in Jerusalem. Some of the earlier commentators wondered that in view of the many pious people who perished during the destruction of the Temple (compare Psalms 79,2 "they have left Your servants' corpses etc."), how was it that if three pious people could have saved themselves that the far more numerous number of pious people who died during the destruction of the city did not manage to save themselves? One of the answers given is that each pious person may have been scattered amongst many sinners, whereas if three pious persons had stuck together they would certainly have been saved by their merits. This may have been the reason that Noach could only be saved after building the ark, i.e. providing a separate environment for himself. As long as he had been surrounded by his compatriots without a מחיצה, dividing wall, he would have been swept away together with them. If Noach had had a few more pious people with him, he and they would have been saved without the need to construct their own environment. Under such circumstances the verse in Psalms 94,15 עד צדק ישוב משפט, that under certain circumstances righteousness could have reversed judgment, would have been applicable. From the fact that Noach was required to build an ark we learn that his sons did not match him in piety. Had they done so, Noach would not have needed to construct the ark but would have been saved in his own habitat. We need to reconcile this with the words of our sages which I have quoted earlier, and according to which Abraham learned from Noach that it was futile to pray for a city with fewer than ten righteous people to be saved. If Noach was the only righteous man in his generation what could Abraham have learned from this? We must therefore assume that though Noach's sons were righteous they were not perfectly righteous people such as their father. When Abraham prayed about righteous people being able to save a town he meant perfectly righteous people, not those whose good deeds barely outweighed their sins. This is the reason that Ezekiel listed the names of outstandingly righteous men such as Noach, Daniel, and Job. He did not refer to three average type צדיקים. We learn from Ezekiel that once the destructive agents have been given permission by G'd to carry out their function, who and under what circumstances someone can restrain them.

ואני הנני מביא את המבול. As far as I am concerned, here I shall bring on a deluge. It is difficult to justify the extra word ואני. Rashi explains it to mean: "I am prepared to concur with those angels who have considered man as not worth preserving." According to my own approach it simply means that the stage had been reached for G'd to give permission to the destructive agents which had readied themselves to carry out their design. Although the verse specifies only rain, the Zohar has elaborated on the meaning of the word מבול which would not have been needed had the Torah referred only to rain. This word alludes to the deadly power of the angel of death.

והקימותי את בריתי. I shall fulfil My covenant. Why did G'd not first tell Noach to enter the ark seeing that his survival depended on that? Our sages (Bereshit Rabbah 31,12) say that the covenant in question was merely that Noach's peers would not kill him when he would enter the ark. In that event it is quite appropriate that the Torah first mentioned G'd as maintaining His covenant with Noach.

An additional meaning maybe that G'd was afraid that Noach would not consider his salvation as a permanent one. He might feel that what was about to occur now might occur again some generations later if mankind did not improve. G'd therefore already hinted to him what He would spell out in more detail after Noach's thanks-giving offering in 8,21. In the meantime Noach had to enter the ark to escape the destruction that would kill all flesh.

G'd may also have wanted to reassure Noach prior to his entering the ark that He would not abandon him during the time it took to sit out the deluge in the ark. Noach should not worry that the ark itself would prove a death trap. This assurance helped Noach as we know from 8,1 where the Torah mentions that G'd remembered Noach during all that time. After this G'd commanded Noach to enter the ark under the protection of this covenant. Although the covenant is not mentioned again in connection with 7,1, G'd relied on His previous assurance to Noach in this regard. The covenant is alluded to again in 8,1 where G'd is reported as "remembering" all those in the ark. Even though Rashi understands G'd as "remembering" Noach's good deeds and the animals refraining from mating while in the ark, this is homiletics and not the plain meaning of the verse.

מהעוף למינהו. From the birds according to their kind. It is peculiar that the birds are mentioned before the mammals in this list. If the list is in order of their respective importance, the mammals should have been mentioned first; if the list is in an ascending order the crawling creatures should have been mentioned first. Why does the Torah use this peculiar order? Perhaps the birds enjoy a certain distinction over the mammals because they multiply so profusely. It is interesting that only the "pure" birds multiply so profusely; the 24 categories of "impure" birds which are not fit for consumption by Jews do not multiply as profusely. We have a tradition (Chulin 63?) according to which 120 varieties of birds were found on the Temple Mount, all of which are sub-categories of the איה, the falcon. At any rate these birds are greatly outnumbered by the "pure" birds. The Torah lists only ten categories of mammals which may be consumed by Jews. Presumably this is the reason the Torah commanded Noach to have the birds enter the ark ahead of the mammals. The difference in the description of the birds as למינהו, and the mammals as למינה, indicates that there were more categories and sub-categories of birds (compare Rashi). The Torah lists the respective categories of creatures, i.e. birds, mammals, and crawling creatures according to their relative mobility.