HHMI Newsgroup Archives
From:
"Yeshivat Har Etzion's Israel Koschitzky Virtual Beit
Midrash"
To:
yhe-parsha@vbm-torah.org
Subject: PARSHA5761 -02:
Parashat Noach
YESHIVAT HAR ETZION
ISRAEL KOSCHITZKY VIRTUAL BEIT
MIDRASH (VBM)
*********************************************************
PARASHAT NOACH
The Flood and Its Aftermath
By Rav Yitzchak Blau
After Noach and his family
leave the ark, Hashem
both blesses them with the promise of offspring (9:1) and
commands them to procreate
(9:7). In between the
blessing and the command, Hashem also prohibits
murder.
Why are these the essential commandments at this juncture
of human history? On the simplest level,
a destroyed
world needs rebuilding so populating the world becomes an
essential priority. From the same
perspective, murder
would undermine the new society. Furthermore, Noach
and
his children, representing humanity, received permission
at this very time to kill animals for food. As
humanity
moved from a comprehensive prohibition on taking the life
of all creatures to a more limited prohibition, God
saw
fit to emphasize that killing a human being
remains a
horrible crime.
On a deeper level, the
blessing of "peru u-revu"
echoes the same blessing given to Adam
and Chava to
signify the opportunity for a fresh
beginning. While
humanity's initial attempt to establish
a worthwhile
society ended in disaster, the possibility for
a more
successful endeavor begins following the flood. As Rabbi
David Kimchi writes (commentary to 9:1),
"even though
they were already blessed at the beginning of
creation,
it is now akin to a new creation."
Immediately after commanding
these mizvot, Hashem
makes a covenant with humanity to never destroy the world
as He did in the deluge. The sign that
represents this
covenant is the rainbow. Many commentaries
attempt to
explain why the rainbow specifically serves as the symbol
for this message. Rabbi
Yosef Bekhor Shor (9:13)
connects this usage of the rainbow with the rainbow as an
image of the Divine presence in Yehezkel
(1:18). The
appearance of the Divine manifested
in the rainbow
reveals that God still favors humanity and has not given
up on them. If He intended to destroy humanity, he would
not shine his countenance upon them.
Ramban explains that the rainbow
represents the bow
employed as a weapon that is now turned around as sign of
peace. The arc of the bow
faces toward heaven to
indicate that God no longer intends to fire His arrows at
humanity and annihilate the world. Ramban maintains that
turning one's weapon around served as a sign of peace on
the battlefield. Hizkuni, Rav Hirsch and
others offer
additional suggestions. Perhaps we can
offer our own
explanation as to the rainbow's symbolism.
An additional striking element in
this passage of
the covenant is the constant usage of Elokim and absence
of the tetragrammaton. To be sure, the name
of Elokim
does dominate the entire parasha of Noach and
not just
this passage. However, there might be a specific
reason
to anticipate the tetragrammaton in this chapter. If
we
assume the traditional
structure in which Elokim
represents the sterner aspects of the Divine, that Divine
name seems out of place here. Surely, God's
promise to
refrain from such punishments reflects the attribute
of
compassion more than the attribute of
justice? After
all, the world could conceivably deserve destruction.
A few pesukim
after the covenant (9:21), Noach
drinks wine and becomes intoxicated. While his father is
inebriated, Cham does something of a serious
nature to
his father. Although the initial
description (9:22)
mentions only that Cham looked at his father's nakedness,
it would seem from a later verse (9:24)
and from the
vehemence of Noach's reaction
that something more
sinister occurred. The gemara in Sanhedrin (70a)
raises
two possibilities: either Cham castrated his father or he
had sexual relations with his
father. What is this
gemara driving at?
Thus far,
we have noted the following
four
questions; 1) Why are the commandments to bear
children
and not to murder given right after Noach leaves the ark?
2) Why is the rainbow the sign for a covenant
in which
Hashem promises not to eliminate our world? 3) Why
does
he name Elokim appear consistently in the covenant of the
rainbow? 4) What motivated Chazal to suggest
castration
and homosexuality as possible sins of Cham?
Looking at
one final issue will enable us to offer an
approach to
the above questions.
In the preceding
chapter (8:16), God explicitly
tells Noach to leave the ark. The need for this distinct
directive raises the question of whether or
not Noach
could have decided to leave the ark on his own
once he
discovered that the water had
receded. Perhaps the
Divine command to enter the ark remained in force
until
another command from the same source canceled the earlier
mission. Alternatively, the call to leave the
ark may
convey encouragement more than command. According to one
midrash (Bereishit Rabba 34:6), Noach incredulously asks
"Should I go out and propagate the world only to
see it
destroyed?" Hashem needs to reassure Noach and
convince
Noach to emerge and once again begin the building
of a
world. Accordingly, God is not commanding Noach to exit,
but is encouraging him.
Notice that the midrash does not have Noach say
"Should I go out and plant trees and build houses only to
see them destroyed." Rather, it is
specifically with
regard to bearing children that the dilemma hits with all
its force. The midrashic choice of children may
simply
reflect the obvious point that the death of a
child is
far more painful that the destruction of a
house. Yet,
there may be a different reason why the midrash
focuses
on having children.
Another source also links
calamity with reluctance
to bear children. The final gemara in the third
chapter
of Bava Batra (60b) relates the pained response of Jewish
groups to the destruction of the Temple.
One reaction
was to claim that marriage and child rearing must
cease
in light of the new horrible
reality. Overwhelming
destruction calls into question the meaning, purpose, and
value of human life. Doubts regarding the worth of
life
could motivate a person to desist from having
children.
Indeed, why bring more people into
a cold world of
suffering devoid of meaning. Thus, Jews
who witnessed
the Temple's destruction and Noach who
experienced a
worldwide calamity were unsure
about the need to
propagate. It is for this reason that the
midrash has
Noach question children more than houses and orchards.
We can now explain the
suggested crimes of Cham
according to the gemara in Sanhedrin. I
believe that
this agenda explores a number of possible
responses to
catastrophe. Witnessing the moral
degeneration of a
world until its creator destroys His own creation
calls
for a response. Noach's descent to the bottle
reflects
the response of escapism. When a person can not face the
overwhelming ugliness about, he can always take refuge in
a variety of mind numbing sedatives. The
gemara's two
approaches to Cham's
transgression represent two
additional strategies: nihilism and
hedonism. The
hedonist decides that if the world will remain
"nasty,
brutish and short," one might as well experience as
much
sensual pleasure as possible.
Conventional sexual
relations do not suffice and one must explore alternative
sexual endeavors such as homosexuality. Alternatively, a
person could decide that life isn't worth it
to begin
with. The most powerful expression of such
nihilism is
the decision to not
bear children reflected in
castration.
Conversely, the decision to bear
children at such a
time declares that despite the pain and suffering,
life
has meaning and is worth pursuing. If so, another
layer
of meaning emerges for the command regarding procreation
following the flood. Rabbi
Meir Simcha of Dvinsk
explains (commentary to 9:6) that the
juxtaposition of
the murder prohibition with the command to bear children
conveys this very notion. Even
though human cruelty
includes acts of murder, this remains enough capacity for
good in the world to jubearing children. The commandment
and blessing of "peru
u'revu" powerfully endorse a
positive affirmation that eschews the easier answers
of
escapism, hedonism and nihilism. Indeed, later responses
to disaster repeat this theme. Rabbi Meir Simcha
points
out that Yirmiyahu also (Yirmiyahu
29:6) calls for
establishing families. Despite the trauma of
exile to
Babylon, this prophet still affirms the meaning and value
of life.
This idea also explains the covenant of
the rainbow.
The simplest explanation for the symbolism of the rainbow
is that "in the midst of overcast threatening clouds,
it
announces the presence of light" (cited by Rabbi
Hirsch,
9:15). More important than the shape of the
rainbow is
the fact that it engenders fresh optimism after the gloom
of a rainstorm. If so, the rainbow not only
symbolizes
that God will not destroy the world. It also
calls for
humanity to remain optimistic despite the ominous clouds
hovering above. Perhaps this covenant is
not just a
promise from God but also makes demands of man in
terms
of mandating the proper response to life's difficulties.
From this perspective, the
usage of Elokim also
takes on added resonance. Radak points out
(9:16) that
the rainbow relates to a time when man's obedience to God
falters and he deserves punishment.
According to his
view, the name Elokim indicates the potential punishment
that is only mitigated by the covenant of the
rainbow.
We can add that it also relates to the
perspective of
human experience. Even when mankind
experiences the
Elokim aspect of the Divine, they must commit to looking
for the rainbow among the clouds. Only the name
Elokim
connotes the correct atmosphere for such a covenant.
One twentieth century thinker
writes of a different
response to our absurd world. Albert Camus
argued that
life is meaningless and the heroic deed is to
struggle
despite the absence of meaning. Thus, Sisyphus's heroism
consists of continuing to roll the rock
up the hill
although he knows full well that his efforts are futile.
As Camus writes, "there is no fate
that can not be
surmounted by scorn." According to Rabbi
Meir Simcha's
approach as developed here, the
Torah categorically
rejects the pessimism of Camus. The biblical version
of
Sisyphus does not accept the notion
that the rock's
descent is a foregone conclusion. Rather,
he remains
hopeful that the rock may yet stabilize at the peak.
In
place of scorn, our Sisyphus, though well aware of life's
difficulties, retains enthusiasm and optimism.
YESHIVAT HAR ETZION
ISRAEL KOSCHITZKY VIRTUAL BEIT MIDRASH
ALON SHEVUT, GUSH ETZION 90433
Copyright (c) 1999 Yeshivat Har Etzion
All Rights Reserved
******************************************************
Return to
Newsgroup Archives Main Page
Return to our Main Webpage
©2011
Hebraic Heritage Ministries International. Designed by
Web Design by JB.