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  aggada  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

******************************************************