Parashat Noah

Rav Haim Lifshitz

Essays and Articles:

Go to Hebrew site

 
Noah

   There were three who were wild over the earth, and no benefit came of them, and they are: Cain, Noah, and Uziyah.”
(Bereshit Raba 36:3)

The Dimension of Height Intervenes to Create Balance

 Translated from Hebrew by S. NAthan

l'ilui nishmat Esther bat mordechai

Ramban 9:5: “ ‘From every animal’s hand, I will demand [blood that it has shed].’ Is this 'demand' as it sounds?  Is it comparable to "the hand of man," i.e. a matter of punishment?  An animal is incapable of being punished or of receiving reward.  Perhaps it refers only  to human blood - that any animal who killed a human would be killed; such is God's decree, the category of g’zerat melech stipulates the law but gives not reason.  "The King's decree" is the reason that “the ox shall surely be stoned, and its flesh shall not be eaten,” in the case of an ox that has gored a human to death.   It is not in order to punish the owners with monetary loss, because even an ox in the desert is condemned to death, and this law applies to non-Jews as well as to Jews.

In this week's reading, a novel idea appears, reflecting a fundamental principle of the structure by which the Creator relates to His universe.  This new concept does not apply to the structure of relations between the Creator and the human being, but rather specifically between the Creator and the creation.  

The Creator expresses this idea, in His concluding words after the Flood - after Noah has built an altar to God and has offered sacrifice from every pure animal: “And He smelled the fragrant smell and He said…in His heart: ‘I shall no more curse the earth on account of man, because man’s heart’s urge is evil from his youth…henceforth all the land’s days – sowing and harvesting and cold and heat and summer and winter and day and night will never cease.” 

In these passages, the Creator is pointing to substantive changes in the structure of creation.  Meaning: If until now I had entrusted the creation into man’s hands, “to work it and to protect it,” from now on, I free man somewhat from the burden of responsibility, and I take back creation’s orderly functioning into My Own hands.

This decision altered man’s status in relation to nature’s titanic forces, and also in relation to the other creants.  In addition, this decision altered the balance between the forces of nature, among themselves, and freed them of their dependency on man’s behavior.

The beginning of this process commences specifically with Noah.  In parashat Bereshit, Noah is mentioned: “And Lemech lived…and begat a son - ben,” and Midrash Tanhuma adds, “from whom nivneh ha’olam, the world was rebuilt,” “and he called his name Noah, saying, ‘this one will comfort us for our deeds and for our hands’ sadness, because of the earth that God has cursed.’”

Rashi brings a midrash: “Until Noah came, they had no plowing tool, and he prepared one for them.”  According to this midrash, man had been suffering from the cursing of the earth, “and the land would bring forth thorns and thistles when they would sow wheat, because of the curse of Adam HaRishon.  And in the Noah’s days, naha, it rested.”

Noah was the first who dared, on his own power, to confront the problem that hindered man from controlling the earth and from using it for his own needs.  Such daring has two sides to it.

On the positive side, Noah’s contribution held a blessing, in that it eased man’s condition, and returned control over the earth to man.

On the other side, Noah’s contribution violated God’s will, Who had intended to take away from man his attempt to break free of his absolute dependency upon his Creator.  Man’s wish to participate actively in the creative work of managing the universe had been accepted by the Creator only in part – in part, in the wake of the devastation man had caused himself and the creation as well.  Yetsira, creativity, includes the root of yetser – the ability to build, and to destroy as well.

“And Noah found grace in the eyes of God”, meaning that Noah’s contribution, which he initiated for the improvement of relations between man and the earth, was accepted and was pleasing to the Creator, for the reason mentioned above. 

This means as follows: Man finds it difficult to control his land, thereby fulfilling “by the sweat of your brow you will eat bread.”  The difficulty of earning a livelihood causes doubt in his own earning power to penetrate man’s awareness.  He is worried and anxious with the fear of survival.  This doubt that creeps into him, weakens his belief in his own power, and directs him to cast his burden on God, and returns him to his original glory.  Along comes Noah, and gives back to man his belief in his own ability to overcome the difficulties of existence by his own intelligence, by inventing helping devices (a plow).

On the one hand, it is a positive act.  On the other hand, there is a fly in the ointment.  This is Hazal’s meaning: “Some expound him [Noah] in terms of praise (in that he improved man’s relation to the earth) and others expound him in terms of contempt (in that this comfortable – noah – relationship to the earth did not bring man to a new turning toward dependency on his Creator, but rather to building up his confidence in his own ability.) 

This means that the hardships of existence have two faces.  The one face of hardship, that which causes worry and existential suffering, has benefit.  Man is unable to live in fear and under existential pressure, and so he seeks and finds peace by turning to his Creator, in the sense of “O God, save, pray.”

Along comes Noah and invents a means to dispel man’s dread and to bring him peace and happiness by increasing his ability to resolve existential problems on his own powers.

Not only did Noah’s contribution deny man the opportunity to return to his Possessor and to strengthen his faith in his Possessor, it also added menuha, restfulness, in that it dispelled man’s existential dread, and what is more, it strengthened his faith in his own creative ability, adding arrogance to arrogance.

Humility prevents a split; it is the secret of unity.  The comparison with Avraham is meant to clarify and to remove the confusion that Noah introduced into the system of relations between human ability and the Godly ability.  The addition that Noah contributed, only added confusion to the delicate balance between the abilities of both sides. 

Avraham merited independence in his relationship to the world and in his relationship with his Creator, specifically because of the absolute dependence upon his Creator that he cultivated.  He never attempted to bolster his own power so as to break free of dependency on his Creator, so as to take a stand opposite Him and be an equal partner.

This dialectic gained him the privilege of representing his Creator to the world of humanity.  It is the secret of humility.  “I am dust and ashes.”  Let lei midilei, he has nothing at all of his own.  There is no confusion in the delicate balance between the supreme ability and man’s ability.  Only one, single ability exists – and it is the supreme ability.

An anav, a humble person serves as a vessel containing bracha, besides the supreme ability.  An anav prevents split.  In himself, he constitutes the key to unity.

Noah’s taking the initiative and intervening in the creation gained him the privilege of participating in the rescue of the world.  He builds a teva.  He is responsible for all terrestrial life, and for man.  Then HaKadosh Baruch Hu commands him to come out of the teva. 

Noah does not rely on the Divine instruction.  He feels obliged to verify that the water has abated.  He sends the raven, the dove, until he has satisfactory evidence that “behold, the face of the earth has dried.”  It is only after inquiries have been made by Noah that orders issue from above.  “And God spoke to Noah, etc.   ‘Go forth from the teva.’”

Noah continues to take the initiative, and he builds an altar.  Offering sacrifices partakes of human initiative, as we have seen with Kayin.  “And God smelled the fragrant smell” in the sense that God consented to the human initiative, to the human’s pining to be an active partner in the management of creation. 

There is one new condition however:  In consideration of the device of yetser, and of its great power, which enables man’s to participate in yetsira, in creating, it would now be necessary to introduce balance between the partners, to divide the power of influence, so that one side could not deviate too far at the expense of the other. 

No longer would the world be dependent on human involvement.  “No longer will I continue to smite all of life” as a result of man’s failure.  I will not alter the orders and processes of the planet and its laws will not be violated because of human behavior.

The world turns as usual, or as human?  Only in relation to human beings will the world’s laws change, toward him alone, in keeping with his behavior.  In relation to man, but not in relation to creation.  For the sake of man, but not in and of themselves.  Here the concept of relativity is born: It is not “en soi”, but “pour soi”.  “No longer will I continue to curse the earth for man (for the sake of man and for his well-being).  Woe to a world that is dependent on man, and woe to man if he is dependent on himself, and woe to another who is dependent on him.  A solid base is needed, that will not be affected, that will not be impaired by the impaired behavior of man.

The relationship between creation and a human being enjoys its law-governed character because it is based upon a foundation of reciprocity.  He is given greater control over the inorganic realm, and over all flora and fauna, by the power of the new relationship, man is permitted the eating of meat, which is limited by the prohibition against ever min hahai, “a limb from the living”. 

He may initiate action to take control over animals: “And fear of you and dread of you will be upon all the beast of the earth and upon all the fowl of the sky.”  “Only meat with its life force – its blood you shall not eat.”  An attitude of reverence, and a prohibition against destroying for no beneficial purpose. 

Human responsibility toward the creation increases the more human intervention is permitted.  Yet this responsibility too, is not absolute.  The prohibition against castrating animals is added to the prohibition against eating ever min hahai.

“Whatsoever spills the blood of man, in man, its blood will be spilled.”  “From the hand of every beast, I will demand it.”  Ramban comments, in context of the halacha, that an ox that killed a person is not killed as a punishment, but rather by force of the new law that has been fixed into creation, the purpose of which is to protect the balance between man and creation.

It is not only man who commits himself to keeping the balance, but also HaKadosh Baruch Hu promises to keep the element of balance, that it should not become impaired without dependency upon human actions.  By his actions, man can exert an effect upon creation’s relationship to him, but to him alone.  He cannot affect creation’s relationship to itself.

“And there shall be no more a flood to destroy the earth.”  The reference is to all the earth.  A partial flood might that is directed at a specific country where man has not kept his part.  In that country a flood could appear as a punishment.  Yet there would be no danger of its devastating the entire creation.

It would be correct to conclude from the general rule of this promise that a nuclear holocaust endangering the entire planet earth is not possible.

The rainbow – sign of the covenant, reveals these new rules that will obtain between the Creator, the creation, and man.  Yet despite all this “Noah was a man of the earth.”  Noah remained imprisoned in the bosom of Mother Earth, with all that this implies, including the danger of enslavement, including the danger of losing the ever-delicate balance, including the danger of devastation and ruin.

Drunkenness symbolizes loss of the clarity required – as an inviolable condition – for fulfillment of the new ultra-sensitive role.  Adam mu’ad le’olam, a human being is held eternally responsible.”  The Torah makes this demand on a human being in no uncertain terms.

“And Ham, father of Canaan, saw his father’s nakedness.”  What did he see?  He saw a weak point, destined for disaster.  It was the tendency to subjugate oneself to the earth that he saw.  From this, his punishment was derived – the punishment of slavery.  From this day on, the phenomenon of slavery shall never quit the earth, despite all liberal attempts.  “A slave of slaves shall he be to his brothers,” as a commemoration of sin, of the danger of enslavement to physical matter, to the earth, and most importantly, to what comes in the wake of enslavement to the earth which is the illusion of brute power – man’s arrogance seeking to express effrontery toward heaven.

Dor HaPlaga, the Generation of the Separation:  A direct sequel to Noah’s tendency, and to his insolent ambition to participate as an active partner in controlling creation.  “And the brick became their stone.”  The difference between brick and stone lies in the degree of human intervention in creation. 

Stone is not the fruit of man’s creative spirit.  Its source is the handiwork of the Creator of the universe.  Brick came to the world as the fruit of human creativity, as a substitute for stone.  By creating brick, man sensed the experience of human creativity as a substitute for the creation – the fruit of human arrogance, a creativity that led man “to cut down God’s plantings”, to be impudent towards heaven, to travel the axis of power that leads to slavery.

Contrast this with enslavement to God, which need not damage the sense of capability experienced by the human being who seeks shade and shelter beneath the wings of the Creator.

In contrast, attempting to amass independent power detaches one from the sense of dependency upon one’s Creator, and creates the illusion of brute power.  This is a double-faced condition.  One face is the experience of power, of rule.  Yet there is no ruler unless there is someone who is ruled. 

The sense of power here is not a true sense of true power, as exemplified in one who identifies with the ruling power of the Creator – a  rule that requires no proof of a personal nature as demanded by ego, because it is the fruit of humility, the fruit of one’s ego- nullification and of one’s identification with and dvaikut to one’s supreme source.

In contrast and as opposed to this, the sensation of human power is the fruit of the sensation of power which man took for himself, attributing itsw source to himself, to his own ego.  This sensation comes from an illusory source, from a need that stems from the fear of existence.  This sensation has no intrinsic justification.

Hence its need to incessantly prove itself.  Egocentric brute force must fortify itself with evidence.  The results of rule are all those who are enslaved by it.  This rule’s other face is surrender.  Enslavement.

Here stone symbolizes the power of Godly creation, whereas brick symbolizes man’s attempt at rule and intervention – an intervention which seeks to push aside the power of the Godly Presence.

The Creator’s response:  There is no root to man’s power.  It is an artificial, barren phenomenon.  How easy to crumble the brick, whose power lies in man’s spirit’s imagination.  Enough to confuse his spirit for illusion’s house of cards to collapse.

Noah, the source of the phenomenon of the races, was the source of division between man and wife upon entering the teva.  The pure animal was given priority.  Seven of each, as opposed to two of each as with the impure animal.  The races began with the sons of Noah: Cursed is Canaan, a slave of slaves shall he be to his brothers.  Blessed is God, the Lord of Shem, and let Canaan be a slave to him.  Yaft, May God be beautiful to Yafet, and may he dwell in the tents of Shem…and let Canaan be a slave to him...From these, the islands of the nations separated to their countries, each one according to its language…and the children of Ham were Kush and Mitsrayim…and from these the nations separated throughout the land after the flood.”

…Teaching you that the ideal of equality has no power to eliminate the original uniqueness that characterizes each race.  Dor HaPlaga, which tried to whitewash differences in order to achieve unity, failed for the reason that any attempt at unity that derives from ego’s brute force tendency – can only end badly. 

Unity dwells in an individual who attaches himself to a framework that poses no threat to his uniqueness, to his private domain.  Only a framework that protects an individual’s uniqueness can enable him to relate generously to the public domain, and to the other.

Within the framework of non-dependency upon nature that was contained in the new program of brit, of covenant between the Creator and Noah, it would not be viable to create external ideological or political conditions for the purpose of creating unity.  Unity from this point on could only result from man himself, from the power of his moral creativity, a creativity of values that he alone activates and initiates.

Go To Top