The Israel Koschitzky Virtual Beit Midrash

Surf A Little Torah
Yeshivat Har Etzion

by Rav David Silverberg

Towards the beginning of Parashat Noach, God explains to Noach His decision to eradicate mankind: "for the earth is filled with lawlessness… " The Seforno explains that the plague of corruption spread throughout all different socioeconomic groups of that generation: "They would all steal from one another: the owners would forcefully steal from the sharecropper, and the sharecropper would steal from the owners with trickery, such that the entire world yielded fruits for thieves." The Seforno here seems to point to an important distinction between the generation of the flood and other decrepit societies of which we read in Tanakh. We often encounter societies where the wealthy take unfair advantage of the pure, the well-connected aristocracy abuses the commoners, and the mighty oppress the weak. Here, the Seforno claims, the situation was worse: there was no contention between good and evil, between oppressor and victim, between the innocent and the guilty. All elements of society participated in corruption and sin. Hence, God decided to destroy them all.

This comment of the Seforno does, however, raise an interesting question regarding the use of trickery and deceit by a victim to resist the criminal activity against him. As the Seforno notes, the sharecroppers were guilty of deceiving the landowners for whom they worked, despite their having been victimized by those very landowners. This prohibition has basis in the Gemara in Masekhet Berakhot 5b, where the rabbis criticized one of the amoraim for withholding his sharecropper's payment, despite the sharecropper's having regularly stolen from him. Apparently, one may not resort to deceitful tactics against even those who have stolen from him.

We may, however, question this stance in light of the famous rivalry told later in Sefer Bereishit between Lavan and Yaakov. In Megila 13b, the Gemara clearly acknowledges Yaakov's adoption of deceitful methods to out-duel his unscrupulous father-in-law. Does this not appear to sanction trickery when dealing with dishonest crooks?

One answer suggested emerges from an important qualification of the permission granted by the Gemara in Megila which the Rambam articulates in a famous letter. The Rambam distinguishes between occasional and regular involvement in dishonesty. As Yaakov's rivalry with Lavan demonstrates, occasionally even great tzadikim - even those, such as Yaakov, who are best known for their quality of "emet," truth - must resort to such methods when struggling against a deceitful foe. One may not, however, acquire for himself this characteristic of dishonesty. If at times a person is compelled by adversaries to compromise acceptable standards, he may never allow this compromise to define his character. One must remain essentially honest and upright even when unfortunate situations dictate somewhat dishonest conduct.

The generation of the flood did not understand this distinction. Victims adopted duplicity as a way of life, rather than a temporary solution to a painful situation. Rather than resisting wickedness with righteousness, they joined forces with their oppressors to transform the entire earth to a land of criminals, worthy of destruction.

*****

As we saw yesterday, the Torah in Parashat Noach seems to point to "chamas," corruption, as the primary sin for which the generation of the flood was sentenced to annihilation. Indeed, Chazal claim that though this generation was guilty of several different wrongs, the sentence was issued specifically on account of the crime of theft. In Bereishit Rabba, the Midrash tells of the peculiar method by which robbery was conducted during this time. Knowing that the courts could not adjudicate cases involving minute quantities (known in halakha as "less than the value of a peruta [small coin]"), criminals would routinely steal these small quantities from others. They would thus accumulate large amounts of money while escaping legal jurisdiction.

Certainly, this Midrash teaches us an important lesson about legal loopholes. While a given action may not be punishable in a court of law, it may nevertheless violate the spirit of the law, the values the law reflects and attempts to safeguard. The people of this generation felt that they could "get away with" stealing small amounts of money. Though in the physical courtroom they were correct, God's judgment operates differently.

Some have suggested, however, that the generation of the flood was punished not despite the fact that people stole minimal quantities, but specifically because they stole only these small amounts. This method of theft reflected an inhibition of the human court system and a total disregard of God's law. People showed respect to man-made law - which tolerates small-change embezzlement - while ignoring God's prohibition, which draws no distinction with regard to quantity when dealing with criminal activity.

This may explain the reference to the generation of the flood in the well-known halakhic principle of "mi she-para." The mishna in Masekhet Bava Metzi'a 44a posits that after agreeing to a sale, a purchaser may retract his consent, even after rendering payment, so long as he has not established legal ownership over the merchandise (such as by taking hold of it). However, although legally he may insist on his retraction, he is nevertheless subject to the curse that "the One who punished the people of the generation of the flood and the people of the generation of the dispersion will punish so-and-so." In light of what we have seen, the reference to the generation of the flood is clear. According to the Midrash, they sinned by abiding by the strict letter of the legal system while disregarding the Godly values they are meant to uphold. Similarly, the purchaser in this case possesses the legal right to rescind his consent, insofar as he has yet to acquire the given item. However, since he has violated the basic ethic of keeping to his word, he is subject to the punishment issued against the generation of the flood.

(The last two S.A.L.T.'s were based on Rav Yehuda Leib Ginzburg, Yalkut Yehuda on Parashat Noach.)

*****

Parashat Noach tells the story of the "dor ha-palaga," the generation of the dispersion. God foils the people's plan of constructing "a city with a tower in its center whose head reaches the skies" by having them speak different languages. As we saw yesterday, the mishna in Masekhet Bava Metzia (44a) mentions this sin and its ensuing punishment as part of the curse issued against one who does not keep to his word in commercial activity. A purchaser, we learned, may rescind his consent to a given transaction so long as he hadn't established legal ownership over the merchandise. Yet, doing so renders him subject to a curse whereby he is to be punished just as the generation of the flood and the generation of the dispersion were punished. Yesterday we considered the relevance of the generation of the flood in this context. Today we focus on the sin of the tower of Bavel. Of what relevance is this episode to one who retracts a verbal contract regarding a sale?

In order to find an answer to this question, we must more closely examine the precise nature of this sin. Needless to say, much has been and will be written on this subject. One explanation, however, may be of particular relevance to our discussion. Rabbeinu Bechayei explains the sin as the misuse of speech: "They said to one another, come, let us make bricks… " For this reason, he explains, they were punished with the limitation of this faculty, such that they could speak to one another. What does this mean? Why does Rabbeinu Bechayei focus on what appears to be a minor factor of this episode? We may perhaps suggest that Rabbenu Bechayei referred to not the power of speech per se, but rather one specific aspect of this power: the ability to communicate. Thtower of Bavel marked the greatest example of mucooperation among comrades and efficient joining of forces towards a common goal. This powerful tool was misused for an unholy task. God therefore foiled their plan by eliminating their power of communication.

Herein may lie the relevance between this sin and a breach of trust in a commercial context. Communication very much depends on trust; the listener can interpret the speaker's words only if he trusts that the speaker means what he says. One who breaks his promise is therefore liable to the same punishment as that suffered by the builders of the tower. They misused the power of cooperation; the purchaser violated the trust necessary for cooperation. In order for society to properly function in accordance with God's will, people must work honestly and justly together for the common good and to establish peace and stability in society. One who works against this ultimate goal is appropriately punished with the inability to communicate and share in mankind's joint pursuit of happiness and prosperity.

*****

Yesterday we discussed the tower of Bavel, emphasizing that the participants in this project misused the precious power of communication granted them. In retribution, the Almighty stripped them of this ability and had them speak different languages. We did not, however, address perhaps the more basic question of why God so strongly condemned the ambitious project of a city with a tower in its midst. Should man avoid industrialization? Had God ever issued a command ordering specifically rural civilization?

As we know, many commentators, most notably Rashi (11:1), point to the tower's construction as the crux of the problem. The plan of a tower "with its head in the heavens" implied a challenge of sorts to the Almighty. "The heavens belong to God, and the earth He gave over to man" (Tehillim 115:16; from hallel). Attempting to reach the heavens meant an effort to overstep man's bounds and intrude upon the Almighty's turf.

The Netziv (Rav Naftali Zvi Yehuda Berlin of Volozhin) offers a much different, novel approach to the incident of the tower of Bavel. He sees little significance in the expression, "with its head in the heavens," understanding it instead as an obvious exaggeration meant simply to denote impressive height. According to the Netziv, the tower was to serve as a watchtower, from which guards would ensure that the city's population would remain within its walls. Herein lies the sin of the generation: the quest for a monolithic, homogenous population where no foreign ideas or lifestyles may be legitimized. The builders are described as having "the same language and the same words." They held certain beliefs and worked on assumptions that they wished to impose on all mankind. They sought to design an insular community that would not allow the intrusion of any foreign cultural elements.

The Netziv views such a quest as a direct violation of one of God's first commands to Noach after the deluge: "abound on the earth and increase on it" (9:7). Man was specifically enjoined to fill the earth, to spread to all geographic regions and establish different communities that can live harmoniously with one another. The Netziv adds that during the period prior to the destruction of the first Temple, Benei Yisrael formed conflicting, insular factions, each of which viewed itself as safeguarding the nation's peace and stability while warring incessantly against the other groups.

God feared the same result after observing the construction of the city and tower of Bavel. If people form such confining societies with no interest in, or tolerance for, others, wars and bloodshed are inevitable. He therefore forced diversity upon mankind by dividing them according to dialect. People would now have to acknowledge the existence of varying societies and differing cultures, such that they can fulfill the command, "abound on the earth."

*****

Commenting on the opening verse of Parashat Noach, Rashi cites a famous dispute in the Gemara as to the meaning of the Torah's praise for Noach. The verse describes Noach as righteous "in his generation." The first view understands this term as emphasizing that were Noach to have lived in a more just and upright society, where he was not subject to the moral ills that characterized his lifetime, he would ascended to even greater spiritual heights. We must therefore read the verse as, "even in his generation" Noach was righteous. The second position, by contrast, understands the term as qualifying Noach's piety: "For his generation, he was righteous; were he to have lived in Avraham's generation, he would not have considered anything."

We may understand this second view in one of two ways. The first, perhaps more conventional interpretation, reads this position as simply pointing to the relativity of Noach's righteousness. Given the conditions under which he lived, he could not achieve a level that he could if he had lived among moral and ethical people. His piety paled in comparison with that of Avraham and other spiritual giants. If, however, he had lived in Avraham's time, he would have gained inspiration from the religious leaders and accomplished more. This is the approach taken by Rav Eliyahu Dessler, in his "Mikhtav Me-Eliyahu" (vol. 2, p.157). We should note that according to this explanation, the two views cited by Rashi do not argue at all regarding Noach's character. Both agree that he fell short of the greatness of later tzadikim but could have achieved that level if he had lived under more spiritually favorable conditions. The two views argue only as to what "in his generation" comes to add: his greatness considering the society in which he lived, or his inability to reach even greater spiritual levels.

Another interpretation appears in the "Levush Ha-ora," a work on Rashi's commentary to the Chumash. The Levush interprets this position as claiming that Noach would not have grown beyond his mediocre level of piety even were he to have lived among righteous men such as Avraham. Thus, whereas the first position Rashi cites maintains that Noach would have ascended to far greater heights in a more virtuous society, the second view feels that Noach would have remained the same no matter where and when he lived.

According to the Levush, then, Noach is criticized for living in a proverbial bubble of sorts, unaffected by his surroundings. Although his isolation saved him from the forces of corruption and perversion that swept the world during the pre-deluge era, it also did not allow him the opportunity to learn from the virtues of others. Difficult as it is, we are to live among others and learn from them, filtering out the bad and absorbing the good.

*****

After Noach and his family emerge safely from the ark, a disquieting incident occurs whereby Noach becomes intoxicated and exposes himself in his tent. The Torah records that Cham, one of Noach's three sons, "saw his father's nakedness" and brought the news of his father's humiliation to his two brothers. Shem and Yefet save their father from further embarrassment by quickly dressing him. When he comes to his senses, Noach learns of what happened and proceeds to administer a harsh curse to Cham and blessings to Shem and Yefet. Although the Torah (in 9:22) initially gives the impression that Cham merely saw his father exposed and told his brothers, which does not necessarily imply an element of disrespect, Noach's harsh response suggests that Cham did not only "see." Additionally, the Torah itself writes, "Noach awoke from his wine, and he realizes what his younger son [Cham] did to him." Clearly, Cham engaged in disrespectful behavior. Indeed, Rashi cites two views as to the objectionable and offensive conduct of Cham, actions which the Torah chose to omit, perhaps out of concern for Noach's honor.

Another possible approach to the sin of Cham would be to more carefully examine the language used to describe his reaction: "va-yaged li-shnei echav… " ("He told his two brothers"). Though a far more comprehensive study is required to verifythis thesis, the verb "le-hagid," as opposed to other verbs that mean "telling" or "reporting," connota certain emotional involvement. Perhaps the clearest example is the famous mitzva of recounting the Exodus at the seder: "You shall tell your son on that day… " ("ve-higadeta" - Shemot 13:8). As Rav Soloveitchik explains, this obligation involves far more than mere verbal recollection; it includes the recitation of hallel and active dialogue between father and son and a truly emotional experience. Later in Sefer Bereishit, when Lavan criticizes Yaakov for secretly running from town rather than bidding a warm farewell and receiving his father-in-law's blessing, Lavan complains, "ve-lo higadeta li" ("You did not tell me" - 31:27). He bemoans the fact that Yaakov never afforded him the opportunity of an emotional farewell ceremony for his children and grandchildren. In Parashat Vayechi, Yaakov prepares to administer his final charge to his sons, to tell them "that which happen to you at the end of days," and he says, "ve-agida lakhem" ("I will tell you" - 49:1).

We may reasonably speculate (particularly given the context) that herein lies the sin of Cham. He not only reported to his brothers what had happened, but he did so fervently and emphatically, relishing the rare opportunity to scoff at his aging, righteous father. (See the commentary of the Netziv, who notes the use of the term, "va-yaged" only proceeds in a different direction.)

If so, then we may perhaps better understand the curse placed upon Cham: his descendants were condemned to the service of those of Shem and Yefet. Cham sought gratification and entertainment at the expense of his father's honor. He enjoyed a certain sense of superiority by witnessing Noach's shame. He is therefore punishment by having his own wishes and desires submit to the will of his masters. Whereas he had hoped to capitalize on the disadvantages of others to further his own selfish interests, he would now be compelled to serve only the interests of others, at the expense of his own dreams and aspirations.

*****

God orders Noach to take with him into the ark a sample of every species of animal so that it may survive the flood: "Of every pure animal you shall take seven pairs, males and mates, and of every animal that is not pure, two, a male and mate" (7:2). To what qualities do "pure" and "not pure" refer? Chazal, as cited by Rashi, explain that God here speaks of the dietary "kashrut" laws that will later be taught to Benei Yisrael. Interestingly, God in this verse assumes that Noach was familiar with these terms and would have no trouble identifying the "pure" and "not pure" animals. From here the sages conclude that Noach studied Torah. The knowledge of halakha he had attained allowed him to easily understand the Almighty's intent regarding the different types of animals.

Of course, there is much room for discussion as to what and how Noach studied, a topic well beyond the scope of this context. We will instead focus on a less complex but perhaps equally as important issue. Why would the Torah inform us of Noach's mastery of specifically this area of Torah law? In other words, is there any particular significance to the dietary laws as far as the story of Noach is concerned?

We may find our answer in the final verse in Parashat Shemini, where the Torah concludes its discussion of the laws of kashrut: "[These are the instructions… ] for distinguishing between the impure and the pure, between living things that may be eaten and the living things that may not be eaten" (Vayikra 11:47). Kashrut is about "distinguishing." It reflects our responsibility to set limits and exert control over our basic instincts, such that definite lines are drawn between the permissible and the forbidden, the acceptable and the objectionable. Noach's generation eliminated boundaries, rejected constraint and encouraged unfettered pursuit of one's desires. The Torah points to two sins in particular: unlimited sexual indulgence (6:1) and theft (6:11). Both point to mankind's refusal to erect barriers between that which is theirs and that which is denied to them. They showed no loyalty to spouses or to their fellow man, allowing themselves unrestrained access to all women and property. Noach, who opposed the prevailing lawlessness of his time, recognized the distinction between "pure" and "impure." He drew the necessary lines between that which he was allowed and denied; this was perhaps the most important "Torah" that he studied.

In the verse with which we opened our discussion, God refers to the pairs of animals to be brought onto the ark as "ish ve-ishto," which literally translates as, "husband and wife." The Gemara (Sanehdrin 108a) asks the obvious question, do animals and beasts marry? What is the meaning of "husband and wife" in the context of animals? The Gemara answers that Noach was to bring with him only those animals who remained loyal to their mates, who lived, in a certain sense, as husband and wife. Chazal here perhaps teach us that only such loyalty could protect the world from the floodwaters and grant it continuity. The world continues to exist only when boundaries are drawn between acceptable and unacceptable behavior, when mankind is prepared to bind itself to an ethical and moral code rather than allowing itself to act freely without constraints.

This shiur is provided courtesy of the Virtual Beit Midrash, the premier source of online courses on Torah and Judaism - 14 different courses on all levels, for all backgrounds.

Make Jewish learning part of your week on a regular basis - enroll in the
Virtual Beit Midrash

Yeshivat Har Etzion
Alon Shvut, Israel, 90433
office@etzion.org.il